Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Well, October isn't tornado season in Texas. So, again, supposing we can
work around weather and other conditions over which we have no control
whatsoever shouldn't be a key factor.  And, I don't it is in the agreed
document.

Regards,
Mary.

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:55 AM Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I would agree with Bob here and that's in line with what Jason had noted
> on the first thread.  Cities and venues can change over time vs. our
> needs.  In this case, I think it appears to be true.   Also, as Bob noted,
> there are not a lot of non-stop flights from outside of NA to that
> destination which is a larger consideration now that we have more attendees
> from outside of NA.
>
> Being from Canada, snow does not bother me, but I would say that we should
> not forget as we increase our base of attendees, many of those folks may
> not be accustomed to the cold or the snow.  This includes making them
> needlessly uncomfortable and making folks buy clothing they may not have.
>  People tend to be better prepared for warm and mild weather vs. very cold
> weather.   I think avoiding weather related issues should be a
> factor/consideration (just like holding a meeting on the south east coast
> of the US may not be a good idea in Hurricane season such as July).
>
> regards,
>
> Victor K
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:42 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Please, do we have to talk about Minneapolis again.   There were lots of
>> reason why we stopped going to MPLS.  We outgrew the hotel, the hotel got
>> tired of us, there are (as far as I can tell) no direct flights out side of
>> North America.   It was only luck we never got snowed at the times we meet.
>>
>> It seem to me that when the old IAOC decided it no longer needed a
>> meetings committee and the LLC replaced the IAOC a lot of institutional
>> knowledge was lost.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 21, 2020, at 7:13 AM, Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Jay,
>> >
>> > +1 to everything John said.
>> >
>> > As you clean up the list and get to the point where cities can again be
>> nominated, it would be instructive to look back at past IETF cities that
>> aren't on the current list and re-evaluate them. Minneapolis was a GREAT
>> city for the IETF. In addition to what John said, the hotel was well-laid
>> out with wide hallways, and many lunch and dinner restaurants can be
>> reached without ever stepping outdoors thanks to the network of skywalks
>> and tunnels interconnecting city buildings. And we had some pleasant
>> socials there as well.
>> >
>> > (I have to admit being a bit biased - I co-hosted one of the
>> Minneapolis meetings.)
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Andy
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:28 AM John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> > Jay,
>> >
>> > (moving this to mtgvenue, per Alissa's suggestion, because the
>> > dead horse has been adequately kicked on the IETF list, and
>> > because I agree with Andrew that it would be good to let the
>> > recent model run for a bit before we start second-guessing it)
>> >
>> > --On Friday, February 21, 2020 07:37 +1300 Jay Daley
>> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> I also admit to being a little confused by there being
>> > >> several cities that were just added to the list of those
>> > >> assessed as suitable yet already have meetings scheduled or
>> > >> very recently hosted meetings (Philly, San Fran, Vancouver,
>> > >> Singapore). Can you shed some light on this seeming
>> > >> discrepancy?
>> > >
>> > > This was an administrative oversight on our part - basically
>> > > it fell through the cracks in the transition from the IAOC to
>> > > the LLC.
>> >
>> > I was surprised by another omission/ apparent discrepancy.  We
>> > met many times, IMO very successfully, in Minneapolis, often in
>> > the winter.  Many of us didn't like the cold, others did, others
>> > were not bothered.  There is an international airport with
>> > direct flights to multiple cities in Europe and Asia as well as
>> > many North American cities and plausible connections to Latin
>> > America and the South Pacific.  It is definitely not a tourist
>> > destination, especially in the winter so, assuming we can avoid
>> > other meetings in the same hotel at overlapping times (should be
>> > easier given our present scale), meetings there are fairly free
>> > of distractions.
>> >
>> > I'm not necessarily advocating going back there, but why isn't
>> > it on the list as, at least, being evaluated?  More generally,
>> > if there are other cities where we have successfully met
>> > multiple times that are not on the list (there may not be), why
>> > are they not listed?   I know that one of your predecessors
>> > developed an intense personal dislike for the place (I've never
>> > understood why), but one person's dislike, no matter what
>> > position he or she holds, does not seem like a very good reason
>> > to exclude a proven location from the list.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >    john
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mtgvenue mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mtgvenue mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mtgvenue mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>