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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

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