Re: [Mtgvenue] Updated potential meeting location list

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

Mary,

It's more of a suggestion and only represents an opinion.  But I think that
somewhat predictable weather issues should be taken into consideration
since they are somewhat predictable.    I agree Tornado season for Texas is
hit and miss.  That said, it's quite likely, in July, the US East Coast
would get a Hurricane so a meeting there could be impacted.  Also, Snow in
Northern US and Canada is also very likely in winter (Nov).    Again, I say
this not due to my personal concerns, but considering others.

I am happy to drop this topic as well since it's likely bearing no fruit.

regards,

Victor K



On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:59 AM Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Well, October isn't tornado season in Texas. So, again, supposing we can
> work around weather and other conditions over which we have no control
> whatsoever shouldn't be a key factor.  And, I don't it is in the agreed
> document.
>
> Regards,
> Mary.
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:55 AM Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> I would agree with Bob here and that's in line with what Jason had noted
>> on the first thread.  Cities and venues can change over time vs. our
>> needs.  In this case, I think it appears to be true.   Also, as Bob noted,
>> there are not a lot of non-stop flights from outside of NA to that
>> destination which is a larger consideration now that we have more attendees
>> from outside of NA.
>>
>> Being from Canada, snow does not bother me, but I would say that we
>> should not forget as we increase our base of attendees, many of those folks
>> may not be accustomed to the cold or the snow.  This includes making them
>> needlessly uncomfortable and making folks buy clothing they may not have.
>>  People tend to be better prepared for warm and mild weather vs. very cold
>> weather.   I think avoiding weather related issues should be a
>> factor/consideration (just like holding a meeting on the south east coast
>> of the US may not be a good idea in Hurricane season such as July).
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Victor K
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:42 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Feb 21, 2020, at 7:13 AM, Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]>
>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>> 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
>>> > <[e-mail]> 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
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Mtgvenue mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mtgvenue mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mtgvenue mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>>
>