Re: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)

["Anshuman Pratap Chaudhary" <[e-mail]>]

Why not in bermuda triangle- innovation coupled with adventure!!! 


Warm Regards, 

Anshuman 


Sent from my BlackBerry® Smartphone, regret typo's!


-----Original Message-----
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:28:33 
To: ext Andrew Sullivan<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)

Why the survey should limit it to the last five meetings...
In the long history we experienced additional good places....
So maybe the survey should be more open and let each list his 3-5 favorable places based on the experience from earlier meetings?
Best regards,
Nurit

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 6:11 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat? (was: Re: management granularity)

Dear colleagues,

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 10:42:10AM -0400, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:

> I expect that a chunk of the variance hinges on the qualifier

While the vagaries of air transport costs fascinate me, I'm not sure
how the question of the cost of one route at one time for one person
is broadly relevant.  The basic fact of having meetings in multiple
places (which is a direct consequence of trying to spread the pain of
travel) is that sometimes each of us will have an expensive flight.
(This is the same reason that I think confusing the
scheduling-in-advance question with the venue question is a bad idea.)

Dave Crocker's original point was that some venues are "good enough"
that you can tune them to be better.  I was sceptical, but upthread we
had two proposals: Minneapolis and Prague.  Nobody seems to have
argued against.

Any others?  At the plenary in Vancouver we heard "go here again", and
we've already decided to run that trial in any case.  That makes
three.  Also, many people expressed satisfaction in Québec.

Vancouver's Pacific location notwithstanding, this appears to me to
suggest that we have one "repeat" location in Europe and two in North
America.  This leaves us rather thin in Asia-Pacific.  I recall people
saying good things about Taipei.  

The point of all this, in case it isn't clear, is to ask to add a
question to the post-meeting survey about specific venues and whether
future meetings should try to return to them.  Given Arrow paradoxes
and so on, I think a short list with "yes/no" for each is much more
likely to yield useful aggregate results than a big list or a rank
order.  So, I'd like to suggest the following survey item be added to
the post-Vancouver survey:

    Do you support the IETF returning to the very same venue (hotel
    and meeting facilities) as the last time in the following
    meetings:

    - IETF 84, Vancouver (Hyatt) [Y|N]
    - IETF 82, Taipei (Hyatt and TICC) [Y|N]
    - IETF 81, Québec (Hilton) [Y|N]
    - IETF 80, Prague (Hilton) [Y|N]
    - IETF 73, Minneapolis (Hilton) [Y|N]

I suppose we could just add every venue from the last _n_ years, but
I'm reluctant to do that because I think it will give too many
options. 

I seem to recall at least some of the previous post-meeting surveys
asking this question about the venue we were just in.  I think it
would be interesting, however, to pick a few popular venues and track
their ratings over time.

This is merely a suggestion for the IAOC, and I hope they feel free to
treat it as a bad idea.  (It's also the last I have to say on this
topic, since I've used up my bit quota.)

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]