Re: Hotel situation
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 05 January 2016 15:01 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D621A87A4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 07:01:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 XS02VABATl0V for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 07:01:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F8691A87A3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 07:01:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1aGT6q-000Nya-0w; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:01:16 -0500
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:01:10 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
Message-ID: <32AAB2A738EC59051C533472@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <568BCE5B.3030006@dcrocker.net>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF6449900E0@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <CABmDk8n2TFvmoMVa8t3FOGXtKF9GUii=wrEyMpJucAoLzCix1Q@mail.gmail.com> <m2r3hwtcug.fsf@chopps.org> <568BCE5B.3030006@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hFlO-hpgrToBwXS_EgilSbWzyXI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 15:01:22 -0000
Dave, While I agree with your conclusions, I think it is important to look carefully at your data... --On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 06:08 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote: > On 1/5/2016 4:44 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: >> I've often wondered if when polls were taken if any weight >> was given to active or long term contributors. > > Thanks for raising this. The surveys should, indeed, be > tailored to produce more useful information, with more > emphasis on pragmatics. > > The IETF meeting has a core of regular participants. They > dominate the surveys we currently do. They are well-funded > and well-traveled. ... and probably well-represented by the people on the Meetings Committee. > To be serious about efforts an inclusiveness, venues should be > easy, quick and cheap to get to and cheap to stay in. > > The surveys should primarily target folk who are /not/ > guaranteed to attend but who are nonetheless desirable > attendees. > > This requires better sampling -- don't just query current > attendees -- and better questions -- don't just ask about > general preferences for a particular city. Yes. And don't just ask about how well the last meeting went. > Our current sampling method produces a tourism focus. > > Jari's comment: > >> On 1/4/2016 12:27 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: >>> Out of the last fifteen meetings: >>> >>> Yokohama, Prague, Dallas, Honolulu, Toronto, London, >>> Vancouver, Berlin, Orlando, Atlanta, Vancouver, Paris, >>> Taipei, Quebec, Praque, Beijing >>> >>> I count only two (Honolulu and Orlando) that were clearly >>> touristy destinations. > > demonstrates some of the problem we have in considering cities > carefully. The reality is that most of those venues are > highly popular tourist destination, especially in summer. > > Four of them are listed as among the top 20 in one survey: > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2014/07/31/the-20- > most-popular-cities-in-the-world-to-visit-in-2014/ But that story appears to be ultimately based on a Master Card analysis [1]that intermixes business and vacation travel (and other categories, if they exist). So I don't think one can get from that list to "popular tourist destinations". > Three of them, in another: > > http://www.tripadvisor.com/TravelersChoice-Destinations This appears to be a more tourism-oriented list. When one excludes locations (or even countries) with no significant Internet engineering presence from that list, those three are actually an uncomfortably high percentage. One could look at other surveys and other criteria. By some of them, the _only_ city on the recent meetings list that is not aggressively promoted as a tourist destination is Dallas. > When we travel to such places during the height of their > tourism season, we encounter bigger crowds and higher prices, > both in transit and in staying. Indeed. And, I would assume, hotels that are reluctant to allocate large blocks of rooms to us at discounted rates if they think they can make more money on the per-room basis from tourists. That leads to another conclusion: many locations have clear "low" and "high" seasons. They can be great meeting locations in the low seasons because hotels and other facilities are hungry and more anxious to accommodate (on rates, room blocks, and more generally) than when they are convinced that most of their rooms will be filled no matter what they do. Minneapolis or Toronto in the dead of winter or Phoenix in July might be good examples of that -- whether those are tourist destinations in the high season or not, they almost certainly are not in the low season. >... > Instead, we should query potential /additional/ or > /infrequent/ attendees who are showing up on discussion lists > already and who are not well-funded. > > The form of the surveys also should be different. Simply > asking for basic preferences about specific cities elicits a > response about the appeal of the city, not about the > pragmatics of going there. Unfortunately, if it is a city that few IETF attendees have visited before(especially to attend large work-oriented meetings) information about those pragmatics may be largely missing and those with information may be hard to distinguish from guesses by people who think the city would be interesting. > So the surveys should begin by priming the context by asking > general, policy-related questions about venue factors, such as > travel price and travel time and venue costs (including food) > and venue convenience (isolated resort versus resource-rich > urban environments). > > After that it should ask about specific locations but should > include information about each place's costs and convenience. > > And it should not just ask about preference. It should ask > about attendance likelihood. That is, cast the question so as > to elicit a mild form of commitment. People answer such > questions differently than open-ended preferences questions. That seems right to me. best, john
- Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- RE: Hotel situation Ted Lemon
- Re: Hotel situation Jared Mauch
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Wicinski
- RE: Hotel situation Ted Lemon
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Dave Crocker
- Re: Hotel situation Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Hotel situation Eggert, Lars
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Hotel situation Nadeau Thomas
- Re: Hotel situation Paul Wouters
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Paul Wouters
- Re: Hotel situation Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: Hotel situation Lou Berger
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Hotel situation Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation John R Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation Sarah Banks
- Re: Hotel situation Donald Eastlake
- Re: Hotel situation Livingood, Jason
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Livingood, Jason
- Re: Hotel situation Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Hotel situation Sarah Banks
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation Ray Pelletier
- Re: Hotel situation Brian Rosen
- Re: Hotel situation Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: Hotel situation Christian Hopps
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Fernando Gont
- Re: Hotel situation Fernando Gont
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation Jared Mauch
- Re: Hotel situation Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Eggert, Lars
- Re: Hotel situation Leif Johansson
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation Brian Rosen
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation Stewart Bryant
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Michal Krsek
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Dave Crocker
- Venue Selection Objectives and Criteria was Re: H… Ray Pelletier
- Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Carsten Bormann
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Michal Krsek
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Andrew Sullivan
- Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Wassim Haddad
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Richard Shockey
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) tom p.
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) John Levine
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Stephen Farrell
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) John C Klensin
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- RE: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ralph Droms
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) John C Klensin
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) John C Klensin
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Eric Burger
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) tom p.
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Hotel situation Pat (Patricia) Thaler
- RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ted Lemon
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Eric Burger
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Joel M. Halpern
- InterContinental BA experience so far (was: Re: H… Marco Davids
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Keith Moore
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… John Levine
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… Melinda Shore
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… John Levine
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… Fernando Gont
- RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ted Lemon
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ted Lemon
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Keith Moore
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Payouts for missed blocks (was Re: Hotel situatio… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Payouts for missed blocks (was Re: Hotel situ… John C Klensin
- Re: Payouts for missed blocks (was Re: Hotel situ… Theodore Ts'o
- Independent Stream (was Re: Cross-area review (wa… Dave Crocker
- RE: Hotel situation Eric Gray
- Re: Hotel situation Mary Barnes
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Stewart Bryant
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation l.wood
- Re: Hotel situation Christian Hopps
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Dave Crocker
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Venue Selection Objectives and Criteria was R… George, Wes
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Nadeau Thomas
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Hotel situation Jared Mauch
- Venue Data for Upcoming Meetings was Re: Hotel si… Ray Pelletier
- Re: Hotel situation tom p.
- Re: Hotel situation Bob Hinden
- Re: Hotel situation Randy Bush
- Re: Hotel situation Paul Wouters
- Re: Hotel situation Richard Shockey
- Re: Hotel situation Randy Bush
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Hotel situation lloyd.wood
- Re: locations, was Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: locations, was Hotel situation lloyd.wood
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- "resource-rich urban environments" (was "Re: Hote… Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: not really the current Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Lloyd Wood
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: ever more hypothetical Hotel situation John Levine
- RE: ever more hypothetical Hotel situation Christer Holmberg
- Re: ever more hypothetical Hotel situation Theodore V Faber
- Re: Venue Data for Upcoming Meetings was Re: Hote… Ray Pelletier