Re: [Mtgvenue] Disposition of the group

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 06 March 2020 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 17EF03A0877 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 06:58:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L8lK0r4WFwjm for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 06:58:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D08F3A0875 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 06:58:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3DF3897C for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:57:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696DED10 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:58:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: mtgvenue@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <87098782-D66A-48C9-8F3E-78B8503A6114@cisco.com>
References: <9B937623-5E7C-4BF1-AC9B-9CFFD5C33F93@cooperw.in> <42D0AD47-B53F-4356-BD54-F57664F7F73B@cisco.com> <C0E65A83-1752-4A2E-B2AA-C7EBC38A5780@ietf.org> <87098782-D66A-48C9-8F3E-78B8503A6114@cisco.com>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/hHllgff-6qjy9V8ghR6MBYZ1HZA>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Disposition of the group
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, 06 Mar 2020 14:58:20 -0000

Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-