Re: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)

[Glen Zorn <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 10:34 -0600, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
> I also would vote to return to Minneapolis again and again even
> permanently.
> 
> 
> Geoff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 6, 2012, at 2:32 PM, "Richard Shockey" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > [RS> ] +1 and no employer ever argued that going to Minneapolis was
> > a boondoggle.  


I imagine that few employers would ever argue that a trip to Hell would
be a boondoggle, either,
but that doesn't make it a good idea...


> > The Hilton in Minneapolis  of all the IETF meetings I’ve attended
> > has the most optimal layout of meeting rooms etc. 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is
> > the best choice IMHO.  It's very reasonably priced, easy for many to
> > get to and the hotel has adequate space for us (even back when we
> > had many more attendees).  Personally, the weather is not critical
> > to me, since I spend the vast majority of my time in the hotel
> > meeting rooms, so I'm very happy if we meet there in March and
> > November.   
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > Mary
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded
> > the hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly
> > gone for IETF recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly
> > cheap hotels, and that I have only been to North American and Europe
> > (but that statistic includes Vancouver and the even further away
> > western US cities down to San Diego). And of course I fly economy,
> > and it's much cheaper including a Saturday night in your trip, even
> > at the cost of an extra night in a hotel (at least it is from here).
> > An almost exception was Paris this year where I was staying fairly
> > cheaply, but that was a cost-shared trip between me and my employer,
> > and I didn't fly (I went by train - though that's not cheaper, just
> > better). Paris has cheap(er) hotels and a metro I understand, so I
> > felt less location constrained.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Christopher Dearlove
> > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
> > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> > Tel: [phone] |  Fax: [phone]
> > [e-mail] | http://www.baesystems.com
> > 
> > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace
> > Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > 
> > 
> > From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
> > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 06 August 2012 15:07
> > To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan;
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
> > This message originates from outside our organisation,
> > either from an external partner or from the internet.
> > Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
> > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > When you are not close (time), flight cost may become higher in the
> > priority (over hotem)....
> > Flying to Vancouver for me for example is the most expensive
> > trip....even though the city is amazing and the host was wonderful!
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > Of ext Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:56 PM
> > To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
> > 
> > Dublin's problem was that the venue was isolated from the city. This
> > has also been the case with e.g. San Diego. (I'm assuming no
> > personal car.) Contrast with Minneapolis (and several other places)
> > where you were right in the city. Being in a city is better for
> > lunch and dinner options, taking a break to go to a bookshop (or to
> > buy something you forgot to bring) and so on. (I'm deliberately not
> > including tourism here.)
> > 
> > However at the moment my priorities to make being able to attend
> > possible would be time (so the closer to me the better - I realise
> > that's impossible globally), cost (hotel first, flight second, rest
> > is noise) and the ability to plan ahead to only attend part of the
> > week. This is the current economic reality. Dublin actually scores
> > quite well on those for me.
> > 
> > --
> > Christopher Dearlove
> > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
> > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> > Tel: [phone] |  Fax: [phone]
> > [e-mail] | http://www.baesystems.com
> > 
> > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace
> > Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > Of Daniele Ceccarelli
> > Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24
> > To: Andrew Sullivan; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
> > 
> > ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
> > This message originates from outside our organisation,
> > either from an external partner or from the internet.
> > Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
> > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Dublin panned? I thought it was one of the best venues and locations
> > of the last meetings.
> > 
> > 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]
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > ********************************************************************
> > This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> > recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> > recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> > You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> > distribute its contents to any other person.
> > ********************************************************************
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >