Re: [Mtgvenue] Disposition of the group

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 06 March 2020 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17EF03A0877 for <>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 06:58:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L8lK0r4WFwjm for <>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 06:58:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D08F3A0875 for <>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 06:58:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3DF3897C for <>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:57:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696DED10 for <>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:58:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 09:58:16 -0500
Message-ID: <21684.1583506696@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Disposition of the group
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, 06 Mar 2020 14:58:20 -0000

Eliot Lear <> wrote:
    > One of the things I believe we need to understand is this: what is the
    > footprint, inclusive of air, hotel, restaurant, as compared to people
    > not meeting?  I also think it helps to have a feel for what would
    > happen if we were to have smaller meetings, but more of them for
    > various clusters of working groups. Would footprints likely go up, stay
    > the same, etc?

Are you suggesting that we meet in areas or other verticals, rather than in plenary?
Or am I mis-understanding.

I think that there are many ways that this would go the wrong direction, but
it could be made to work in a variety of ways.  Some things I can think of might be unpopular.

    > If we were to gather that sort of information, then the community can
    > discuss what to do next.  Right now, we simply lack data.

I think we need to use IETF107 to figure out what questions to ask.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-