RE: IETF hotel selection mode and a proposal (was" Re: Hilton BA is Booked already?)

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 17 December 2015 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C9F1B2F53 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:22:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EsWRs5K36uEd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:21:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52B201B2F52 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:21:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBHGLr1t027780; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:21:53 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (75-45-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr [109.190.45.75]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBHGLoiI027727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:21:52 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Phillip Hallam-Baker' <phill@hallambaker.com>
Subject: RE: IETF hotel selection mode and a proposal (was" Re: Hilton BA is Booked already?)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:21:50 -0000
Message-ID: <076c01d138e7$0a68dba0$1f3a92e0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdE45nF0sShhHutGQSywJ64VokpraA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22008.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--2.898-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--2.898-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 7ySqCuYCpfj0hDdWAvNPkwPZZctd3P4B8GRhP/nTHNZW/7cM1JChsxu7 mvaAcMJpuFczJn8kLlONOBsfMXL0dOaq9u55LQ05+xZBkvxHstih9lX/ZdrRwtJgDNnoqapaHI5 m1jfCnHWtEvkg+1Vl5CJwZ49pd8OBbuPV0IxRNAOBi3oqrtckyn0tCKdnhB581kTfEkyaZdz6C0 ePs7A07UIfgK5hHpllC3NC/e3uUMuczxwdpqGVazyl704U+gxiGGf6rUj2LZ1JMOdHk9C/PekRD kEQI/x/7dXfnJnVaP9OdTCvtazW6/Kour6XCHQEh8f9+fd10RPkvmU7gj2frT4n7o4CNd3aodO9 X0I+jcrAvpLE+mvX8g==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tdf24-096gmjHO5HhX_lz4Td898>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:22:01 -0000

Hopefully "perk" is not quite the intended word, but "necessary convenience" might serve better.
Although...
How many IESG breakfasts were there in Prague?
And, as a member of NomCom I had breakfast meetings every day of the week in Yokohama, but no preferential treatment.

I agree that the I* needs to be around the meeting venue.
The Secretariat even more so.

But it wold be  useful thought experiment for them all to examine how their weeks would be different if they had a 20 minute walk each way each day.

Adrian

> First meeting for IAB/IESG members during IETF week is 8am, possibly earlier.
> 
> My first meeting I have to be at is 9am on some days of the week.
> 
> Sure, I might arrange a breakfast meeting etc. But there is a big
> difference between a meeting I arrange at my convenience where I
> expect four or five people to be at and one that is set by others and
> will have two dozen people discussing something that is complex and
> not necessarily my stuff.
> 
> I am all for greater openness and accountability in IETF. But the
> starting point for that would be recognizing that we do actually have
> a membership and officeholders should be accountable to it rather than
> petty attempts to strip officeholders of the only perk they get for
> doing the jobs.