Re: So, where to repeat?

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 8/6/12 5:23 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> Dublin panned? I thought it was one of the best venues and locations of the last meetings.
The meeting wasn't "in" Dublin. There are no venues  attached to or 
adjacent to suitable hotels large enough to do a plenary in Dublin.

Regarding the venue itself. Next to no attenuation between floors. I am 
still surprised that building had enough steel in it to not come down 
around our ears.

I'd just as soon do wifi for 1200 in a tent.
> What about Italy or Spain? I've never heard about an IETF in Italy. I'm ok with meetings outside Italy since i like traveling very much, but i was wondering why it has never been taken into account in the past meetings. Is it expensive? I think Italy and Spain are much cheaper than France, UK or Sweden, aren't they?
>
> BR
> Daniele
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
>> Sent: lunedì 6 agosto 2012 14.06
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 11:58:19AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> enough merely to have excellent staff.  We need to go back to the
>>> better places and benefit from the learning curve.  This
>> doesn't mean
>>> "no new venues" but it means fewer.
>> As a practical matter, may I ask about which venues you want
>> to return to?  I get your argument in principle, but it seems
>> to me that there has been quite a lot of complaining in the
>> past.  The one factor that seems to me most likely to reduce
>> complaints -- weather -- is evidently beyond the Secretariat's
>> or IAOC's control.
>>
>> People seem inclined to return to the Hyatt in Vancouver,
>> elevators notwithstanding.  We're going to do that.  (I don't
>> understand why the previous Vencouver venue was less desirable
>> -- to me, these venues were very similar, and not very far
>> apart.  I note, however, that the previous two Vancouver
>> visits were near the end of the year, when it rains all the
>> time in Vancouver.)
>>
>> People complained at length about the venue in Paris, so I
>> presume it's out.
>>
>> Some people complained about the hotel room prices and travel
>> expense in Taipei, though I heard remarks that it was a good venue.
>> Should we try to return there?
>>
>> People complained in advance about getting to Québec, although
>> afterwards I heard lots of good noises about that venue.  I
>> note that the weather was great.  Should we try to return?
>>
>> I don't recall much complaining about the Prague venue in
>> 2011, which was striking to me because very little seemed
>> different to me compared to our first visit there.  Perhaps
>> this is evidence of the "tuning"
>> you suggest (ensuring the water bottles were plastic, for instance).
>> But I note the weather was excellent.
>>
>> Beijing?  I guess Maastricht is out. Anaheim (FWIW, I thought
>> that was an example of a terrible location, but many people
>> seemed happy with it)?  Hiroshima?  Stockholm?  San Francisco
>> (we thought the crime at Paris was bad, yet didn't complain
>> about being smack up against the Tenderloin)?  Or there's the
>> old standby, Minneapolis; perhaps we could do it in March.
>> The Dublin venue was panned by large numbers of people.
>> Philadelphia, people complained about expense.  Chicago, too
>> (combined with hotel renovations).
>>
>> That gets us back through 2007.  Which of the venues do you
>> think we should return to, to which we already haven't
>> returned or planned to return?  And why?
>>
>> For what it's worth, I would not complain about returning to
>> any of those venues; I personally had good meetings at all of
>> them except Hiroshima, which I missed due to other
>> commitments.  That includes both Maastricht and Dublin, which
>> were both apparently trials for large numbers of others.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> [e-mail]
>>
>>