Re: limiting our set of cities

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

> On 20 Feb 2020, at 05:17, Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 2/20/20 7:46 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
> 
>> I think that we should pick the top 12-16 locations that participants are from, then for each destination prior to it being considered we calculate the travel PAIN (cost + time) for that set of participants.
> 
> Why favor participants from large cities?   It's not like they're representative of the whole group.
> 
> Also, different participants have different ideas of pain.
> 
> A fairer method would be to poll every participant about their preferences for future meeting cities, then for each meeting, pick N polled participants at random from those who have attended the last M meetings (locally or remotely), and select from the cities show up in their preference lists.
> 
> Keith
> 
> 


IETF is a place we go to work, so for me the only criteria is how efficient that city is in us getting the work done. If there is a huge travel burden that efficiency is diminished. Any criteria such as it being a cool place to visit is a bonus, but to be completely ignored in the selection criteria.

Why not take the list of cities that have been proposed.

Invite people that are noncom eligible to estimate their travelling time to those cities.

Then pick the set of cities that minimise the travelling time for 2/3 of the attendees.

That way those that are committed to attend share an acceptable level of travel pain equally. Those that are new gradually move the needle as they attend.

An alternative metric is to minimise the jet lag for the population of committed attendees, since as I for one find that as the most significant factor in how well I work at the destination.

- Stewart