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

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

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. 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.

>From a practical viewpoint, is 1/3 the right level? Today that would mean
about 400 rooms. If that is unduly restrictive, we could lower it a bit.
But before almost every meeting, we see mail from people complaining that
the main hotel is sold out.

Rgds
   Brian