Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 21 February 2020 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D3C312083F; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:41:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ggsWOFOqalUl; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:41:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 947D712013B; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:41:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id r67so1064428pjb.0; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:41:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=RSqwW61y30G4avlnudmsCOepYqrTOsVYhsKj6HbuIzo=; b=HpVknktptHbT2AmLe2cTAzo++jW+qM9GnBiZUxuD5+718sml0xGodXc4wjiW9TjWGE jtkUkfhGsJtyFG/KFgGEykN5k5FYIQ4MI2sy7VCDWSqbGTvS74fpfvT2XxlV7VnFnBbn gR89RLHbBTfgdPx+GQ6Ym0omrIHjjV9uYJr73p1e/AqsDNynScibB3ONf0Qn+fo5nMVH Bb9hnaMk82WRQIM7fU0fiEfuFyL7dfhHnvnwdzEHaGrQRHQNRyPKkUtuJSpE+GIN1sds 3fQKwHuzPFTwxaeKxJmoN6PHXKlCc4mlxGPSUYRznQSHjWGKeRwhOw8Lti/bioD+HC1j UB3w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=RSqwW61y30G4avlnudmsCOepYqrTOsVYhsKj6HbuIzo=; b=TI5LzCOwiEyYtD6sMO0sFRlw3Yox3rQTM6xexZsYWm2u3sHOJVkz4OmF2U4zchRpck SAUXYw5uu9n7qmnD6VK2T32tr9XWJXtwWKpbMYz9ItvK0/83QbZsWza+y6DHU8f8ul2j qQeocc9r8mddqbe0IGf+Icxf4IssmV/OocuFSJIrjugq/UXca6RhWfCw/LD+XAdY50kN KKds74CuZcnWl5KwmbV0Q80YC97J17bp3lc96KTtoEAHPyKuuZMAXZuw/ERnJwkOHV5u THHZEIovmBtaAtAf0e67pQetNweTEtnX1lsPf7miAmCIojsIqnY63WP29Lcb+oYS2NXq 5VfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW3VD6wqYIG+aZf6cVyX/JBGisH48j6By8gqiiaIpjN4+f3BTNt VuPeaVMd9PesxTYSv4gTVDw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwZIi3Olp8cWiHQGtT+zd7V4giGWLa7Jn+uQPFdIVW4l8sLJdDrOwFuM4dvOrTdl/BTGd4i0w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9a82:: with SMTP id w2mr37099372plp.117.1582306881021; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:41:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5900:13c4::1007? ([2600:8802:5900:13c4::1007]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l11sm3122048pgt.59.2020.02.21.09.41.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:41:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E60E2C3D-2060-47E8-A43F-F9975D0C23F0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FA9165F1-6349-4C50-9D98-9FB5144E30F4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.19\))
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:41:18 -0800
In-Reply-To: <815DF738991D44E1E197E78C@PSB>
Cc: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <13820272-7189-4803-A842-EA86FE051C10@live555.com> <9B420C95-9E85-4969-ADCA-8F3AAE026396@ietf.org> <CA+k3eCQz4qK-1KxYFSA=o3oX4oxG=n4t_YazW4aR2cnX9t=GxA@mail.gmail.com> <F9CC625E-477F-45B5-964F-BAD1D47AFC97@ietf.org> <815DF738991D44E1E197E78C@PSB>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.19)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/X0ABD9dihs9VYXkENrwL_sk5UX8>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:41:24 -0000

Minneapolis fell off the list due to the difficulty of the Chinese getting visas for a string of meetings - a US State Department issue that affected us. I personally like Minneapolis in December (January could be quite a bit different) - the city has facilities to enable people to get around easily without walking outdoors, and it works.

I tend to think that the original reason should either be applied consistently across US locations, or abandoned as not specifically about Minneapolis.

My two yen, yours may vary.

> On Feb 21, 2020, at 6:27 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> 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
> <jay@ietf.org> 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
> Mtgvenue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue