Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> Mon, 30 August 2010 17:57 UTC
Return-Path: <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B133A69EF for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.329, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wxGTGv0EV5zb for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CD93A6A12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=rg+ietf@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1283191101; x=1314727101; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:date:to:from: subject:cc:content-type:x-random-sig-tag; z=Message-Id:=20<p0624061ac8a19ea24a50@[99.111.97.129]> |In-Reply-To:=20<4C7944A0.6050306@dcrocker.net> |References:=20<D06E18DA-96E7-43C5-B2DD-C90248ED82FE@isoc .org>=0D=0A=20<4C7944A0.6050306@dcrocker.net>|X-Mailer: =20Eudora=20for=20Mac=20OS=20X|Date:=20Mon,=2030=20Aug=20 2010=2010:57:57=20-0700|To:=20<dcrocker@bbiw.net>,=20Disc ussion=20IETF=20<ietf@ietf.org>|From:=20Randall=20Gellens =20<rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>|Subject:=20Re:=20Meeting=20Venu e=20Preference=20Survey|Cc:=20Dave=20CROCKER=20<dhc@dcroc ker.net>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-as cii"=20=3B=20format=3D"flowed"|X-Random-Sig-Tag:=201.0b28; bh=QiKe01Hxcxvvhs0z6JygBTATamQGakIJdoVAKewxmt8=; b=YIoSX4x7t50aervdKt+3905IpOf0anqfytZkK27ln8UB95IcazFEtibb qq9tmXwzTEVWCqzeabP6Rvn3jGMKm1lSvBSbzmy08s6FMLkyUqp28dvtz G6HzNOe1c3H/h9I3uXYScaxJsyxw3bU3IQT3SfMdSE9OfmDp5RLaaU+Mx Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6090"; a="52754328"
Received: from ironmsg02-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.16]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 30 Aug 2010 10:58:20 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,292,1280732400"; d="scan'208";a="84858532"
Received: from myvpn-l-414.ras.qualcomm.com (HELO [99.111.97.129]) ([10.64.129.158]) by ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 30 Aug 2010 10:58:16 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624061ac8a19ea24a50@[99.111.97.129]>
In-Reply-To: <4C7944A0.6050306@dcrocker.net>
References: <D06E18DA-96E7-43C5-B2DD-C90248ED82FE@isoc.org> <4C7944A0.6050306@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:57:57 -0700
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Discussion IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Cc: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:57:51 -0000
At 10:17 AM -0700 8/28/10, Dave CROCKER wrote: > From the survey: > >> 2. Meeting Preferences >> >> 1. It is important to me to have the meeting venue be easy to get to: >> It is important to me to have the meeting venue be easy to get to: > > Very unimportant >> Slides > > What does "slides" mean? I'm guessing it's an extraneous entry, > since it throws off the apparent model of a balanced 5-choice set > of responses. I took it to mean "depends on other factors" but wasn't at all sure. The problem is that most of the questions had no clear answer in isolation, but depended on other factors. >> 2. Do you prefer a meeting in a gateway city, > > I believe the underlying problem with this question, as > demonstrated by the postings about it so far, is the lack of > consistent criteria for defining "gateway" and "secondary". > > I'll offer the view that a "gateway" city is a principle hub of > international air travel, while a "secondary" city should have at > least some international air access. I think that's a useful > distinction, but it means that more than one of the examples of > secondary, in the survey, really would be classed as tertiary or > worse, and there's a reasonable chance that Vancouver would count > as primary. From an air travel point of view, Vancouver is a gateway. There are non-stop flights on multiple major carriers within multiple alliances to multiple cities on multiple continents. It's commonly used as a transfer point. However, I'm not aware of any major carrier that uses it as a primary hub (e.g., LAX, DFW, ORD, JFK, LHR, AMS, HKG), so if this is the criteria then it doesn't qualify. >> 8. Would you attend if we held the IETF in Africa? >> 9. Would you attend if we held the IETF in South or Central America? Like the question on an earlier survey about Quebec City, I think it requires more information and more individual research to have a good answer. Which venue in which city? How hard is it to get to the city and venue? Could I get an airfare that my company would approve? Would we be in a central facility with a lot nearby, or would we be scattered around? (I would personally want to know what the rules are for smoking, but I understand only a few other participants would care.) -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- Nice guys finish last, but we get to sleep in. --Evan Davis
- Meeting Venue Preference Survey Ray Pelletier
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Michael StJohns
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Michael Richardson
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Mary Barnes
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey James M. Polk
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Joel Jaeggli
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Dave CROCKER
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Dave CROCKER
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey John C Klensin
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Randall Gellens
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Doug Ewell
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Donald Eastlake
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey Dave CROCKER