Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 30/10/2016 09:00, Yoav Nir wrote:
> 
>> On 27 Oct 2016, at 22:11, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 28/10/2016 02:28, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> Dear IAOC,
>>>
>>> G'day.
>>>
>>> I'm currently acting as document editor for this effort and am looking 
>>> to get closure on pending items for the effort.
>>>
>>> For this note, there's a question that was put to the IAOC:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2016 6:49 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>> = Section 3.3.4 =
>>>>
>>>> "The Guest Rooms at the IETF hotel(s) are sufficient in number to
>>>>      house 1/3 or more of projected meeting attendees.  [Mandatory]"
>>>>
>>>> Personally I would be interested in hearing from the IAOC about the
>>>> extent to which the pool of potential sites would be broadened if we
>>>> were to relax or do away with this requirement. From the outside this
>>>> seems like a limiting factor in the site selection, one that other
>>>> meetings/conferences don't feel the need to adhere to, and one that
>>>> isn't motivated by a compelling enough rationale to make it mandatory (convenience
>>>> doesn't quite count, IMO). With our meetings running for 10 hours per
>>>> day and increased ability to find overflow hotels with reasonable
>>>> Internet access, does this still need to be mandatory?
>>
>> IMO it isn't a matter of convenience. I've always found hotel-based meetings
>> more effective than convention centre meetings, and meetings where the majority
>> of people are in the main hotel more effective than ones where people are spread
>> out. It just makes informal discussions and casual meetings much easier.
> 
> Can you elaborate on that?  Regardless of whether my room is upstairs or a bus ride away, I get to wherever the conference rooms are a little before the first meeting and go away after the last side meeting that interests me. After that it’s dinner and back to my hotel room, wherever it is. 

Right there: what about some other side meeting that develops in the lobby
just before or after dinner, or unexpectedly at breakfast (at venues where we eat
hotel breakfast)? Or in a nearby restaurant? Or in the elevator, for that matter.

>I think others do it the same way. What does having my room far away change?

You can hang around the main hotel until late, if your hotel is within a block
or so. I've done that, or worked with colleagues who did that, and it's fine.

>> For
>> counter-examples, I think of Vienna (IETF 57) or even back to Amsterdam (IETF 27)
>> where people were spread over numerous hotels. Not good.
> 
> I wasn’t in Vienna or Amsterdam, but I was in Maastricht, where people were spread all over town. I was also in Yokohama where most hotels were about 15 minutes walk from the venue. Even in Berlin some people stayed at the venue, some across the street, and many others all over the place. I didn’t notice that people who stayed at the venue were any more accessible than people who stayed far away.

Well, my experience is different - as noted above, alternate hotels that are nearby
are fine, especially if they are reasonably priced. But if there's a bus/subway/taxi
trip needed, not so fine.

However - this conversation makes me inclined to agree that this criterion shouldn't
be a MUST. It feels like a strong SHOULD.

   Brian