IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] Potential schedules for BakeAThons in 2011

Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com> Mon, 11 October 2010 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Thomas.Haynes@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C443A6B1A for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9P9FmOTe5Kf9 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6583A6824 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,315,1283756400"; d="scan'208";a="465871703"
Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2010 09:58:06 -0700
Received: from sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com (sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.99.115.28]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id o9BGw6N7003357; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtprsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.115]) by sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:58:06 -0700
Received: from RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([10.100.161.111]) by rtprsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:58:05 -0400
Received: from sanders1-lxp.hq.netapp.com ([10.58.60.245]) by RTPMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:58:03 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Thomas Haynes <thomas@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF3BB6D12298F54B89C8DCC1E4073D80027DD7A6@CORPUSMX50A.corp.emc.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:58:02 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <79D854E7-E596-4560-9440-9735AD4A4349@netapp.com>
References: <9C0FE01C-2ECC-468D-AC32-524191536058@netapp.com><4CB30E70.3080200@RedHat.com> <9af8934019c8f3d84432b005ce087796.squirrel@webmail.eisler.com> <BF3BB6D12298F54B89C8DCC1E4073D80027DD7A6@CORPUSMX50A.corp.emc.com>
To: david.noveck@emc.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2010 16:58:03.0861 (UTC) FILETIME=[7826C050:01CB6965]
Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Potential schedules for BakeAThons in 2011
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:56:55 -0000

On Oct 11, 2010, at 11:44 AM, <david.noveck@emc.com> wrote:

>> I suggest amortizing travel costs to align with an IETF 
>> meeting (most of much are no longer in the USA). 
> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.html does not show 
>> Paris as future venue, though there are several European 
>> meetings planned with TBD as the venue.
> 
> I think Mike makes a good point about amortizing travel costs.
> 
> I believe that having the events in the exact same city is not required
> to provide that amortization.  Paris and Prague are 550 miles apart.  I
> haven't got into the details of flight costs but I'd expect we are not
> talking major bucks here.
> 


The main problems with that proposal are that

1) ConnectAThon is traditionally in that time frame and,

2) honestly, even with the IETF meeting being in the US, more people
attend a BAT than an IETF meeting. I.e., I don't think the savings would
be that huge per company.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email