Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list

Bob Hinden <> Fri, 21 February 2020 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C98120878; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:42:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q_UfqdnT5zCq; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:42:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5CC2120852; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:42:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t14so2387409wmi.5; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:42:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=HzJkKQE99dM4mo0f7KcOYia6Gp5mVHoiNDkzobtpQVk=; b=IDChX4DrE1RgeYEX5F2hp1+sTac1iqHIagzH1wewFKCS9CX+Jh/YBR8xHbT0NcZSyW QN9O2cPPFE/5h2mHvTq+YkevXpW1SnZQ4MWDE+mLWED+1ei2wJwdl16gjY56znu3fTm7 0/953ZAs/fKu2dpb0m2QmPULYhvCM7Asg065MsijIuwgUIoQLKXbPBZH4za2H5tWz4+w +b6veusyzeEYOJ5/HEKHxQ0JO641ziNESApT/tjRxNpSNjy5ZkbQPpo47woBCNf92/Xh 4h3UYLpEWpOqQWBkM20Uhshn3ntTg6cAauDB1bJTaqzIhT2BCOtpRmOf+DWJ4S3u0w1N VkWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=HzJkKQE99dM4mo0f7KcOYia6Gp5mVHoiNDkzobtpQVk=; b=hZkre+t9n/7Awze8PfmS9UGi+CBiTFkbT4KmtojHd7fWtMKeytyBTo8DrGnyvdEug5 Qy1J+LCMNGPucj0z9ExUyMUjm2Vql8up5gTG+8Z0btHivALt+td9BddBVBQyUVkC2vXt XnesLvwdrJRB30T+MuHvtFdHnHX7TzT1r2hkTHmtaZmzLuDiNeniPMmqQ/ADn0bLI5bz lc131Lmr6O1y/DrPStZhNQoNvkE2CsUdrG93XUvKLIFU7cCtwK9UFeWwx/TIAp3eOcCx ye5VA2DdOeLoTKfWQRmIU9lEz74zZdtJITJ2+E9wO2JZIhYLCrsMsrBoPX2S9VyxYF27 95sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVzMJ2yIuZr1Flzxq30dS+9k49b3dh9I1gFORtMq5hKZuTQXV3p e5c7B6CtLLsNzc4BwC8zd5U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxelbjnjgNbjQSv4YQL+J8OgrTgg5itejPCSNTXuXpvWFG3c6VRERIEl4j0YBPIzshbu29nnw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:a9c4:: with SMTP id s187mr4380968wme.97.1582299725116; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:42:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:2980:850e:474e:65e7? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:2980:850e:474e:65e7]) by with ESMTPSA id b10sm2010529wmj.48.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:42:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_62DE8C32-94CC-4925-BB3B-56777673B5B0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:42:00 -0800
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, Jay Daley <>,
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <815DF738991D44E1E197E78C@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
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 15:42:09 -0000

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.


> On Feb 21, 2020, at 7:13 AM, Andrew G. Malis <> 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 <> 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
> <> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list