Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> Sun, 22 May 2016 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A8A12D0F7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 18:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g8nL3xLjOIh1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 18:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B57112B011 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 18:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77A51612CA; Sat, 21 May 2016 18:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id ETjp-vqrw50j; Sat, 21 May 2016 18:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CDE16132A; Sat, 21 May 2016 18:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 9wYGKg54pKVC; Sat, 21 May 2016 18:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (cpe-76-91-246-89.socal.res.rr.com [76.91.246.89]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DD9E1612CA; Sat, 21 May 2016 18:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
In-Reply-To: <2ceffd31-c78f-f6f7-116e-85498b4413f1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 18:43:57 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F4DAF475-4162-4A2B-9338-5DAF19AB3A38@cs.ucla.edu>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMGpKFiA78iQDFa5xaM0r0q_3LfLO_JKxaWJ9CBUTeaLg@mail.gmail.c om> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es> <5740A90E.2030200@gmail.com> <34CC7DDE-3341-4BF8-8238-B32176EDC72A@consulintel.es> <55BAE36899C13FA1D0565FAF@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <2ceffd31-c78f-f6f7-116e-85498b4413f1@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/boLHXuevBlzaoUIO-JtC9tx-cEE>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 22 May 2016 01:44:00 -0000

> On May 21, 2016, at 2:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
>> In particular, "nice place to bring family or companion(s)" is
>> either a selection criterion or it isn't.  I'm not talking about
>> where it is in the list of priorities and tradeoffs; I'm talking
>> about whether or not it is on the list.

my vote is no.

> It could be on the list if we believe that it has a significant
> impact on attendance and therefore on financial viability. But
> that's surely secondary to 'getting the work done' and 'getting the
> best range of people to the meeting'.

agree.

Lixia