Re: limiting our set of cities

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Michal Krsek <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> Can you tell the community if the LLC has any plans/thoughts to stop
    >> looking for new places to meet, rather to just establish a list of
    >> 10-15 cities where we have successfully met, and simply repeat?

    > I think this not a good idea.

    > Based on my experience (I spent significant energy to bring IETF to
    > Prague) the event brings local attention to the Internet and people are
    > more likely want to participate. And (I believe) new city (and Prague
    > is relativelly new city) can host succesfull meeting.

We have been meeting in Prague since at least 2007. (that was my first, but
was it the first?  Network too slow to look right now...)
That's 13 years of IETF's so 40% of IETF's ~32 year history.
Sorry, you are not relatively new :-)

    >> I'm sure that many of the cities on your list are potentially
    >> interesting, but why bother make the effort?  Yes, we should have "*"
    >> in the rotation 1-1-1-*, but we should do it intentionally as reach
    >> out.  I don't see Austin (or Ottawa, or Malta) as being reach-out, as
    >> nice as they might be.

    > For me it seems like the point is - can we find local volunteers on top
    > of "offical host" who can put an extra effort to make the organization
    > smooth. Looks to me like bridging the gap in between ietf meeting
    > participant expectations and local culture is a key for success.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-