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

Laura Nugent <lnugent@amsl.com> Tue, 01 November 2016 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lnugent@amsl.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 79F4F1298C1 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 attfflYMO1-b for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 113871293D9 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1082D1E55CC; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hmn5djL_KD-L; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.4] (unknown [71.92.92.57]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFFFD1E55BE; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Laura Nugent <lnugent@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <f7b3c9ea-de33-26d1-8f0a-3ce82860771e@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:03:42 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B7162C59-16C7-4885-8524-AC8BAAD3BAE7@amsl.com>
References: <E3C933A5-6141-437A-ABA9-CF881BC8149E@cooperw.in> <50f9aade-69aa-0f49-05a6-00c891f96070@dcrocker.net> <2fcf2945-094a-0041-a464-8965d0a472d2@gmail.com> <C86363C1-B427-4278-B325-C883C6DEB7D3@gmail.com> <7eb36108-79cc-a3f5-6c41-1d7e4b1b849e@gmail.com> <f7b3c9ea-de33-26d1-8f0a-3ce82860771e@dcrocker.net>
To: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/XNHZpBNycEfb7GxJtbeMQQZQlY4>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:03:44 -0000

There is no question that requiring a headquarters hotel that is willing and able to offer guest rooms to accommodate 1/3 of our anticipated attendance results in the elimination of a number of cities as well as otherwise suitable venues within cities.  

I understood that the benefit of requiring this number of guest rooms at the headquarters hotel was primarily related to the desire to provide a large number of attendees with the IETF network, which is only available in the headquarters hotel.

Laura



> On Oct 31, 2016, at 08:08, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 10/29/2016 2:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Well, my experience is different - as noted above, alternate hotels that are nearby
>> are fine, especially if they are reasonably priced. But if there's a bus/subway/taxi
>> trip needed, not so fine.
>> 
>> However - this conversation makes me inclined to agree that this criterion shouldn't
>> be a MUST. It feels like a strong SHOULD.
> 
> 
> Concerning the 'design' choice to have a primary hotel, and without trying to voice my own preferences (especially since I'm not even sure what my preference is):
> 
>     I believe the historical view is that having a primary hotel creates a locus for gatherings and discussions outside of the scheduled meetings.  By way of example, this view is institutionalized in the reference to a Bar BOF.
> 
>     Having a variety of smaller hotels, with no major one being primary, reduces the beneficial accident of coming across random other IETFers in passing and chatting about whatever IETF topic strikes their fancy.
> 
> Given the basic IETF goal of cross-pollination, this locus outside of formal meetings is typically seen as significantly encouraging that benefit.
> 
> d/
> 
> ps. It also needs to be noted that lining up many, smaller hotels would be significant, additional work for IETF staff...
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> Mtgvenue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>