Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list

John C Klensin <> Fri, 21 February 2020 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D31E120059; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:38:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FMO-UOzbImQN; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC472120047; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:38:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1j5ANU-000Pco-0e; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:38:08 -0500
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:38:00 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <>, Jay Daley <>
cc: Brian Campbell <>,
Message-ID: <614D74EECFB580BEF4729544@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <815DF738991D44E1E197E78C@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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 15:38:13 -0000


I would actually advocate going a step further.  If we have held
multiple successful meetings with O(1000) attendees (not just a
few hundred or fewer) in a particular city, I think that city
should be treated as nominated and its omission as an error
because actual success should be considered at least a jump
start on the evaluation process.   Put differently, we should
learn from our successes, not just our failures or a desire to
explore new places and opportunities.   We don't _need_ to go
back there, but its omission from the assessment list seems

Jay, another questions or suggestion: The introductory paragraph

	"This is the list of cities that have been assessed for
	suitability as a location for an IETF meeting or are
	still in the process of being assessed."

There are no cities listed as "not suitable".  Does that imply
that every city that has been evaluated has turned out to be
suitable (a result I'd find a bit odd but not impossible) or
that places deemed unsuitable are simply being dropped from the
web page?   I think the latter would be a bad idea if only to
save renominations.  Listing them might lead to some
second-guessing debates but they are probably inevitable and, in
the interest of transparency...


--On Friday, February 21, 2020 10:13 -0500 "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