Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list

John C Klensin <> Fri, 21 February 2020 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5FB120800; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:28:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oqI85pci0nMA; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:28:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2CC112003F; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:28:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1j59Hj-000PPE-2j; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:28:07 -0500
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:27:59 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Jay Daley <>, Brian Campbell <>
Message-ID: <815DF738991D44E1E197E78C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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 14:28:12 -0000


(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.