Re: limiting our set of cities

Christian Hopps <> Thu, 20 February 2020 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0181200EF for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:46:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UFaf3oupQfFO for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E57812001A for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEA7A60B79; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:46:30 +0000 (UTC)
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: Christian Hopps <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:46:29 -0500
Cc: Christian Hopps <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <17764.1582194882@dooku> <>
To: Michal Krsek <>
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 12:46:33 -0000

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.

It's hard to believe Singapore and Thailand would be in such heavy rotation if this were done. I like these places to visit, but really why are we going to them so often? A cynical part of me thinks "someone[s] important likes going there" might be carrying too much weight in these decisions.


> On Feb 20, 2020, at 7:28 AM, Michal Krsek <> wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>> Can you tell the community if the LLC has any plans/thoughts to stop looking
>> for new places to meet, rather to just establish a list of 10-15 cities where
>> we have successfully met, and simply repeat?
> I think this not a good idea.
> Based on my experience (I spent significant energy to bring IETF to Prague) the event brings local attention to the Internet and people are more likely want to participate. And (I believe) new city (and Prague is relativelly new city) can host succesfull meeting.
>> Many have suggested this as a better policy, but it seems that it's just
>> discussion.
>> Christian Huitema made a good case already for the Asia list being not just
>> Bangkok/Singapore, but also including Tokyo/Yokohama and Seoul.
>> That's four for Asia.
>> One could easily add: North America: Vancouver, San Francisco, Montreal, Philadelphia.
>> Europe: Prague, Berlin, London, (Paris?)
> I expect some voices for Minneapolis and some other saying "no" for any US venue. I also saw some objections to Singapore in the list in the past.
> The other problem is that experience in cities can change over time (due of objective or subjective reasons). And we need a process get cities in and out the list.
>> I'm sure that many of the cities on your list are potentially interesting,
>> but why bother make the effort?
>> Yes, we should have "*" in the rotation 1-1-1-*, but we should do it
>> intentionally as reach out.
>> I don't see Austin (or Ottawa, or Malta) as being reach-out, as nice as they
>> might be.
> For me it seems like the point is - can we find local volunteers on top of "offical host" who can put an extra effort to make the organization smooth. Looks to me like bridging the gap in between ietf meeting participant expectations and local culture is a key for success.
>                 Michal