Re: [Mtgvenue] business travel:

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

On 31/01/2017 04:47, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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.)

Perhaps "typical business travel" would clarify the meaning.

  Brian

> 
> 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/
>