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

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 06:01:13AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> By way of example:
> 
>      If an area has many, smaller hotels nearby, is the convenience of
> getting together hurt significantly?  Why or why not?

This depends pretty significantly on the venue, one's own methods of
working, and so on.

For instance, ICANN had a meeting in Dublin last year.  There _is_ no
primary hotel there, because the meeting was in a conference centre
not directly associated with any hotel.  People stayed at a variety of
hotels around the place (I was like a 20 minute walk away, for
instance, on purpose, but there were three or four in the immediate
vicinity).  The venue had plenty of open space where one could have
casual discussions, and of course it being Dublin there was no
shortage of pubs and other small establishments nearby for a little
nosh or a pint.

But AFAICT, IETF participants just don't like this sort of arrangement
(or at least, some IETFers complain about it a lot).  We had a similar
arrangement in Montreal some years ago, with the actual meeting in the
Palais de Congrès, and I recall people carping about the walk of a few
blocks through the charming streets (with many restaurants and so on
along the route).  In many cases, I think we're optimising for certain
noisy participants' aversion to the large room with the very high
ceiling and the nuclear-fuelled light source.  I also suspect that
won't change, so we need to suck it up and accept it as a requirement
that is not particularly rational.

And that may be part of what is making me uneasy about this entire
exercise: we seem to be pretending that the effort is driven primarily
by reason and rational weighing of options, but I am not actually
convinced that is true.  People want what they want, and sometimes
it's worth it to give it to them even if their stated reasons do not
match the outcome.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]