Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list

"Andrew G. Malis" <> Fri, 21 February 2020 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82DF12084F; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:13:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K85_jIDfX9ZL; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 073B9120838; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c15so641012vko.9; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:13:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=opTiBrFvkQPm5jw2BNaUU144IkGykWeubCR9RyUR1cQ=; b=nmsu/B/YL2rbsQaHYPJ+1Dy+iW0iH3QZ3MJbWTjxzS1b5qL8RxeRFQO5h6qV88hPqG LviiSaUmppJ7cz8lMHXdo4cc/S0rseKqLJ+7V7XdRcjcK9iTcVH1DdrRE1uU1ZWzbvFd kMFKtLd9G/lc/FvOduDAEuXNeIVkJH4hcEfGrM8djxcLW5ci9cwKiVHEI5lnT9UJTrDD OPCsOyrf9tIKDT/fBjz6Aiau4lp8fmdvmeyvK9Z2XvjAH1cltH/Z8S1MB1L0mNFB/epU ApAUXdOujPby5PMc0rb3mX27NzmwmUU9ckj0erWhgBRCNxLsOEfmf9rroT8BUXcAcIs6 CXcw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=opTiBrFvkQPm5jw2BNaUU144IkGykWeubCR9RyUR1cQ=; b=JdvqtUdyneuF2IboXaRrt4PBvfRzMbyJDh2LJviia4Qv+wZg59hRnPZBpCT54XpcNf oi9P5npUS6D43rokIAFz04CJLno/+A2YLLAovEYT1ZjtMwxqoWHrFMN3NrC6xl/rgxY1 6RBvH4Tw3sGiFzuXB10bdwkmgoWSoUt44RWNhr+cy6U7OVdYZGlvCL2L64X3ivxthuGT Y9jTeavLfHnl2ifnzePlQ+Tsg7tArrO68a5H2/S1HBafSYHVB6ObO/Sdaoi1SSAUwEWX Ex1oFwPS/pKtX7D/gWJY0qexav1Ds61zxh3pyPPoRhpGVR3YvH2FRTHvkIIx1IjbTVX6 ZSSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXVTbGaE85/TRNeGOu4VRrdUpzKdK0iD7FowACZvh5AZ+PgC5IQ odnGJ0w+7h9Lx1CFwF5c80JSa9kFvB1atHx/yt1eteqA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw5zsvhnV5Rr96H/FGMSbGAtnC7IY4YRuZXC0ITgs/YG9MHf2DRjNjZC6svAjOv/0FYg2iMFLS7/YjBeeX29f8=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:1f0f:: with SMTP id f15mr9839629vkf.18.1582298024668; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:13:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <815DF738991D44E1E197E78C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <815DF738991D44E1E197E78C@PSB>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:13:32 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Jay Daley <>
Cc: Brian Campbell <>,, John C Klensin <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b0740f059f177783"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:13:49 -0000


+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


On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:28 AM John C Klensin <> 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
> <> 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