Re: Hotel situation

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 06 January 2016 23:38 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
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 DD2431A1BFA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 15:38:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 UFFnxZjfuke5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 15:38:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B38631A1BF8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 15:38:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1aGxf0-0000Qb-3u; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 23:38:34 +0000
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:38:32 +0900
Message-ID: <m28u42jn2f.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Subject: Re: Hotel situation
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1601061808000.16282@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <567192F3.9090506@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A09BC1@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF6449900E0@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <CABmDk8n2TFvmoMVa8t3FOGXtKF9GUii=wrEyMpJucAoLzCix1Q@mail.gmail.com> <346B0259-F6BD-4207-988F-950D6C03F7FD@piuha.net> <02ac01d1486a$d0c41660$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <E364AC68-AAF7-4E7C-BD66-794D032A52CE@gmail.com> <m2fuyajoqf.wl%randy@psg.com> <alpine.LFD.2.20.1601061808000.16282@bofh.nohats.ca>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tjEPxOC7r67PwfnrPCMcddfikYU>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 23:38:40 -0000

>> why?  vegas seems an ok us venue.  maybe tacky, but we're not so high
>> society ourselves.
> 
> Often, companies cannot let their people go to "party locations", even
> if they know the conference is real and the employees are there doing
> work. Corporate policies banning those locations tend to trump that.

i am not sure i would want to work for a manager who thought vegas was a
leisure destination.  

but i had not considered this aspect.  i consider vegas to be a form of
hell; but it works well for conferences.

i suspect there is a correlation between very large all-in-one hotels
and the perception of a leisure destination.  back to bob's point that
we have placed whole lot of conditions.

randy