IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Hotel situation

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 05 January 2016 14:35 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 6320A1A8720 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 06:35:33 -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 vrZlVMJPITAI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 06:35:32 -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 73B9C1A871D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 06:35:32 -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 1aGShr-000NwG-P7; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 09:35:27 -0500
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 09:35:22 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
Message-ID: <E628312DB341971BB1958397@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|5d0b573d1b2ce2f5229d83cd4276a170s04EHY03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|902D6B2A-7224-43A4-93D8-685E62D7542D@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF6449900E0@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <CABmDk8n2TFvmoMVa8t3FOGXtKF9GUii=wrEyMpJucAoLzCix1Q@mail.gmail.com> <D38CB535C27A8E9D7B77BC2F@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <568B89BD.1040008@gmail.com> <7E1588330F38B7D9A45B189E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <902D6B2A-7224-43A4-93D8-685E62D7542D@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|5d0b573d1b2ce2f5229d83cd4276a170s04EHY03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|902D6B2A-7224-43A4-93D8-685E62D7542D@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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/k_kYNEirdHx3FjYoBYo2v101ZGs>
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: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:35:33 -0000


--On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 14:17 +0000 Tim Chown
<tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

>...
>> Minneapolis was a place we went to multiple
>> times and found successful (for the reasons you give).  Then
>> we stopped.  There has never been an explanation to the
>> community as to why we stopped
> 
> It would be interesting to know. It is, or was, a good meeting
> venue.
> 
> I'm guessing attendance is lower, and meeting fees matter
> more now?

I note that "pick locations to maximize meeting fee income" was
not on any of the lists of criteria that have been posted in
recent weeks by various IAOC and Meetings Committee members.  I
presume that means it is not an important criterion because, if
it were, the criteria that the community is being told about and
the criteria that are being used are different... and that, to
me, would be a very serious matter.

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email