[Mtgvenue] business travel: (was: Re: comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 1/30/2017 7:07 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>>> - 3.2, "within the norms of business travel": I don't like
>>>>> that characterisation - IETF participation might in future
>>>>> not live up to that budget. Ought we say "acceptable to IETF
>>>>> participants in general" maybe.
>>>> Didn't we just get away from having to evaluate what that means?
>>> Not sure what you mean. My point is that for some IETF
>>> participants (some of the time;-) "business travel" means the
>>> front of the plane and no problems with expensive hotels.
>>> Others are more constrained. I'd prefer we ground the acceptable
>>> costs on the "average" meeting-attending IETFers ability to pay.
>> I get it.  Just want to avoid consensus calls on what people think is
>> reasonable.  Maybe spelling out what is meant by "norms of business
>> travel" is best...
> I'd avoid the phrase "business travel" entirely. While IETF
> travel is business for almost all of us, that phrase has
> connotations of more comfort than some of us can afford, at
> least for me when I play the poor-mouth:-)


The draft has details carefully designed to cover those with lesser 
budgets.

The purpose of the phrase "business travel" is to give a generic sense 
of the style and expense of choices made for the mainstream IETF 
participant.  The meeting hotel is the obvious example.

"business travel" is not a precise technical term, but it is meant to 
invoke a basic tone or style.  (For reference, most businesses do not 
pay for business class airfare.)

The mainstream IETF venue choices are not 'budget'.  Nor are they '5 
star".  'Business travel' therefore gives a basic sense of the target 
quality and cost that is sought.

Again, we also have text that carefully covers requirements below that 
category.


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net