Re: limiting our set of cities

Keith Moore <> Thu, 20 February 2020 13:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9631200FD for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:17:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=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 DsYA25BdYdBA for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F9461200F9 for <>; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE704E6; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:17:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:17:07 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=nq9Vw80NpYDYWtXsyiGzaj6jb5kK8FyaEjzkUd09w CA=; b=KEyniPBueEoV7YozWsD0IAddSuB5ofXVZbSY0CY0U01aFUoKNurd6sLy0 tzS9RZXIbAjlKcVjef+i0bzGZklw2wf6ZD5IBBPpp5Ywg6H+Ua4T2k8t9JEIOJQo EWzLOCwsYU63X87komTK6lk4TVr95zTVZxPULidyUW76rlFtTVMJMHulTnGpqc66 dEw7+trBtijg0cfBrkYWM6PakZ0C6BrI5acX0JSzbSBUVOk2U74grh2JEclFOXPU 7tdi0TwU281NWtV3bT3/9vV1iaFfPsnLSOIdioN1tNE2tjatRUdpqx7LBipEkUd7 BXy6wqbjmgxFXjZAbBbrFVFsnu60Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:0oZOXgWayGOckL_bH9LsN8pwZDv5-u5p3igvXynISwgUiWuEz0QxPA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrkedvgdehudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekre dttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrdduhe enucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohho rhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:0oZOXovlKZmEhjtgvtjY4dXMYFMGKc61FKv2ZQkB_X3CvRv9waQUyQ> <xmx:0oZOXv9dZkTxXaYH_YtgAupvXGP20NXf3kNpwtyTJIEDoDUpPqXUWw> <xmx:0oZOXhmjI2P08U8GsOEdwtdSG37hi48K_BY7Z8RH_dJm8lq8IMnIxg> <xmx:0oZOXg62gF-0YjIcjyoUeXDoXFuZluvTx9RzTV3NftFWwIIeFSGFxQ>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D10593060C21; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:17:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: limiting our set of cities
References: <> <> <17764.1582194882@dooku> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:17:04 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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 13:17:09 -0000

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.