Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

I would agree with Bob here and that's in line with what Jason had noted on
the first thread.  Cities and venues can change over time vs. our needs.
In this case, I think it appears to be true.   Also, as Bob noted, there
are not a lot of non-stop flights from outside of NA to that
destination which is a larger consideration now that we have more attendees
from outside of NA.

Being from Canada, snow does not bother me, but I would say that we should
not forget as we increase our base of attendees, many of those folks may
not be accustomed to the cold or the snow.  This includes making them
needlessly uncomfortable and making folks buy clothing they may not have.
 People tend to be better prepared for warm and mild weather vs. very cold
weather.   I think avoiding weather related issues should be a
factor/consideration (just like holding a meeting on the south east coast
of the US may not be a good idea in Hurricane season such as July).

regards,

Victor K



On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:42 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Please, do we have to talk about Minneapolis again.   There were lots of
> reason why we stopped going to MPLS.  We outgrew the hotel, the hotel got
> tired of us, there are (as far as I can tell) no direct flights out side of
> North America.   It was only luck we never got snowed at the times we meet.
>
> It seem to me that when the old IAOC decided it no longer needed a
> meetings committee and the LLC replaced the IAOC a lot of institutional
> knowledge was lost.
>
> Bob
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 2020, at 7:13 AM, Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Jay,
> >
> > +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
> meetings.)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:28 AM John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
> 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
> > <[e-mail]> 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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mtgvenue mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>