IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Tue, 07 August 2012 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12FBC21F861D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.659
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.456, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F1K1I6PNwFYu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC2A21F855E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q77NITeP029330 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:18:29 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk q77NITeP029330
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1344381509; bh=UML/1DpaGc9fdM4PcPSEy/oSabg=; h=Subject:References:From:In-Reply-To:Date:To:Mime-Version; b=oP5U3wykBaCKECLMpafAfeNXvnWfZ4IsTM8Ei0SbrhM9/9MhY2kBoMqlZJOx5KGXy o9CwFCxBdiweIhVYfhZk5mpY0nOtJ29jZO9HhTslV3QMRI8bE7cI2ChfG/BP5s3oMt u8BsfmR+jLP506dnq/K/bjDIORJlr7mw5Z1q+K14=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id o770IY0430609415XJ ret-id none; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:18:29 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q77NH9Yn011552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:17:10 +0100
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)
References: <31BCE4DE825B3F4D9E452EFBBD3F1EF2834A0516@PACDCEXMB01.cable.comcast.com> <502169E9.9020009@dcrocker.net> <AC30AAA7-8634-4851-86CC-6F64095BB600@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|0ebd669a4eccc2cca00daf1beb84ed50o76MuX03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|AC30AAA7-8634-4851-86CC-6F64095BB600@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <39C56E09-72AD-4C99-9A62-3992DEF04D70@shinkuro.com> <D48A7250-2C4D-479B-A53C-B075F0318497@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206)
In-Reply-To: <39C56E09-72AD-4C99-9A62-3992DEF04D70@shinkuro.com>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|259b87edcd936ca1e1490039dd285e00o770IY03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|D48A7250-2C4D-479B-A53C-B075F0318497@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:17:18 +0100
To: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=o770IY043060941500; tid=o770IY0430609415XJ; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: q77NITeP029330
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 07 Aug 2012 23:18:34 -0000

On 7 Aug 2012, at 23:01, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:

> I'll bet Dublin would be rated higher if the meetings had been downtown.  Same for Vienna.

Quite possibly, but a rating is based on a venue, not a city.  Dublin is a great city.  An out of town golf resort is not a great venue.

Tim

> On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> My top three repeat venues would be Prague, Minneapolis and Vancouver.  Great meeting venues, with everything you need nearby.
>> 
>> My least favoured venues have been Dublin, Vienna and Maastricht.
>> 
>> Of course, you have to experiment to find good repeat venues...
>> 
>> Tim
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email