Re: Hotel situation

Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> Wed, 16 December 2015 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <sbanks@encrypted.net>
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 D45631A8A42 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:05:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, 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 CkeAchJDkAwM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:05:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from firefly.encrypted.net (firefly.encrypted.net [72.13.81.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CD9E1A89B5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:05:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from firefly.encrypted.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firefly.encrypted.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57899353C8; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:05:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at encrypted.net
Received: from firefly.encrypted.net ([127.0.0.1]) by firefly.encrypted.net (firefly.encrypted.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hA_jW8W3XJld; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:05:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.23] (c-67-164-24-91.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.164.24.91]) by firefly.encrypted.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6D95353CD; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:05:18 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
From: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <56719864.8010604@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:05:24 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <09ADB134-4ADE-4F16-B826-B313111187EB@encrypted.net>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <56719864.8010604@gmail.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iX1vhLZj5lgTVDq5M3RpQuUO8sU>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:05:22 -0000

Since we're piling on, I'll +1 this. I don't recall getting a hotel room the day of registration opening ever being such a huge issue as it has been. As a female, I prefer to be in the venue; it allows to meet as early or late as I want to, without having to worry about the walk "home", and the logistics that come with that. 

/S

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/16/15 7:52 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> Why are we continuing to have hotel issues meeting after meeting 
>>> after meeting after meeting?
>> 
>> Because we can't force hotels to give us large allocations.  
> 
> We already have a list of hotels which will.
> 
> Either meetings are important or they're not.  If we're
> going to continue to treat meeting participation as necessary,
> we need to make it easier logistically.  Instead we keep throwing
> up barriers to participation.  The closest overflow hotel
> is nearly a mile from the Hilton - how's that going to work
> out for people with limited mobility?  I'm very happy having a
> walk each morning and evening but I'll tell you that it can be
> a huge PITA for breakfast meetings for people not staying
> at the headquarter hotel.  Getting work done should be one
> of the primary considerations, here.
> 
> Melinda