Re: limiting our set of cities

Stewart Bryant <> Thu, 20 February 2020 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E136A120115 for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:37:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PsgCHXZTqxv3 for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:37:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03A5812013D for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:37:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id j7so1763990plt.1 for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:37:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=rMed0nMkBAf4cB2urqmNQPMpaQDJucHUL63FUeWCAqY=; b=jKED84HW9DvWQMTcLrZee54LFrFWC0YCsEcgkcIE2BFdq4pMmsfWvD9MMfym1xXXfT rOVv01eaKTAX2ljeyXMguyt9bjExPvDBW+4LgYuAMJDFbhGHr4j66Ae9DqF1YTqDoOxA z9QjUTGEeRU93F0yS5ksttpodwNk39XzkHql7AnzqBMSe0M7wrc9IIkX/+PRdEmh2M5/ 89FudpBUH0XB28RzitsMp4DXFPD2csjGcA5HBVAuYucm+CC9QKx+4MJAPdru3y0bkojs EIEeGbLerFAVSbFsAhLiPEjnssXL2gCg80BLi79i11WzCxwuybTBtppMJh/U3M5FTyaO 8JZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=rMed0nMkBAf4cB2urqmNQPMpaQDJucHUL63FUeWCAqY=; b=Uu8hMxSl8djqqYcRMgvrBbicZU0dYkkabJ4lUcZ3dA2Zpbar6FckJ2DpvLj6zdeTUB kpkHf+iZm/g5B3EovsgJ+N7xJP6YCgzDhc4F7bdGyMybIBgkHb8OaS3Y0w6QA31slmQf XwXR/g7hwzELT637soQ6pdT7V5ur3Dc3/N4MqoN+JViYkiVHi6YB4w+PmCtzjqyU9AtD UyVn7Of5n5pxkdEk/QpfO8g8rsve824p2v688PzKC7jW/sGFpM9qaVQQF8c2x+LdpV+b YDJ5LD6O4micLVWONQNp3YDryvkoM29iZL92XT9Pi7XG6oV3VsrZ74WCGekTIAe22fex K88A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUhfj7FeJR4IyQqeTZmtd2h/ri4lgKwwwLpSwQogwrgMvaFiUnU iEp+n+eilzPWRHxs1gRYiOt45Ptun04=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwk+LmB9QFw2yYdwAsNzlDgDvKOp744dSz+Zbi1dwN+ypsokKlqX30fd/86wt2rXDSJ0arWTQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:694c:: with SMTP id k12mr31208932plt.329.1582216674276; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id a17sm91753pfo.146.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:37:53 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: limiting our set of cities
From: Stewart Bryant <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:37:52 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <17764.1582194882@dooku> <> <> <>
To: IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:37:57 -0000

> On 20 Feb 2020, at 05:17, Keith Moore <> 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