Re: Travel Considerations

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Fri, 12 October 2007 18:49 UTC

Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IgPZy-0000Jf-Nm; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:49:46 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IgPZw-0000JJ-Ty for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:49:44 -0400
Received: from mail.songbird.com ([208.184.79.10]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IgPZw-00031D-Eh for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:49:44 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (ppp-67-124-88-239.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.88.239]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l9CInEaa023461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:49:15 -0700
Message-ID: <470FC1A8.9030501@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:49:12 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Burger <eburger@bea.com>
References: <A5E9CBACB726CB4BAA3DAFF0925C188F01DA406C@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
In-Reply-To: <A5E9CBACB726CB4BAA3DAFF0925C188F01DA406C@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Travel Considerations
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


Eric Burger wrote:
> Here is an interesting optimization problem: it turns out the most
> polluting part of a conference is people taking jets to fly to the
> conference.  Minimize that and the planet wins.  Favors hub cities over
> spokes, like San Diego or Prague, where you "can't get there from here",
> no matter where "here" is.


Ecological arguments merely add to the list of reasons that major 
international hubs are the better choice.

Additional travel time for each participant. Typically additional travel cost. 
Travel connections, that introduce subsantially higher risks of delays, lost 
luggage, etc.  Fragile air linkage -- fewer carriers and fewer flights means 
that it is easier to interrupt service.

The only logistical factor that can be in favor of secondary venues is cost. 
If the on-site costs are low enough, they might offset the travel factors that 
increase the cost.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf