Re: [nfsv4] Potential schedules for BakeAThons in 2011

Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas.com> Mon, 11 October 2010 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <bhalevy@panasas.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 6A89C3A6BAB for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ZO6DgCpRAe46 for <nfsv4@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod5og104.obsmtp.com (exprod5og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.0.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 272C63A6BB4 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([67.152.220.89]) by exprod5ob104.postini.com ([64.18.4.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTLNnxpH/BhWlQF6i4o6aauqJzfdObFMi@postini.com; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:40:15 PDT
Received: from lt.bhalevy.com ([172.17.3.222]) by daytona.int.panasas.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:38:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4CB367C5.2030402@panasas.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:38:45 -0400
From: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@panasas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: nfsv4@ietf.org
References: <9C0FE01C-2ECC-468D-AC32-524191536058@netapp.com><4CB30E70.3080200@RedHat.com><9af8934019c8f3d84432b005ce087796.squirrel@webmail.eisler.com><BF3BB6D12298F54B89C8DCC1E4073D80027DD7A6@CORPUSMX50A.corp.emc.com> <79D854E7-E596-4560-9440-9735AD4A4349@netapp.com> <43EEF8704A569749804F545E3306FCE33E11D9@SACMVEXC3-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <43EEF8704A569749804F545E3306FCE33E11D9@SACMVEXC3-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2010 19:38:45.0681 (UTC) FILETIME=[EB1FBA10:01CB697B]
Cc: "Erasani, Pranoop" <Pranoop.Erasani@netapp.com>
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 19:39:18 -0000

It's sad you guys are thinking of the costs of travelling from
the U.S. to Europe as something so hard to afford, yet the
European folks are paying these kind of costs regularly, coming
from the other direction.

Bottom like, if no shipping of equipment is involved, is the difference
that big?

Benny

On 2010-10-11 14:08, Erasani, Pranoop wrote:
>> 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.
>  
> Honestly, that cannot be a factor against that proposal.
>  
> That may be tue today. Because, folks like me that don't have an active proposal to present/discuss think that it's not a good use of their time to attend IETF, especially if I have to be conscious of my day-to-day job. If you align bakeathon with it, then they might come or vice-versa.
>  
> I think we are swayed too much by the urge to hold it in europe. No one seems to have any data on how many additional folks would attend bakeathon, if that is held outside US. If there was some, please do share. Also, weigh it against how many US regulars would not be able to make it to the event.
>  
> Just to reiterate, my comment is not about "DONT ever hold it in europe".
>  
> On the face of it, on the personal front, I certainly would not be able to attend, if it is held in europe. If I have to combine the trip with something like IETF, then I could consider.
>  
> - Pranoop
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> *From:* Haynes, Tom
> *Sent:* Mon 10/11/2010 9:58 AM
> *To:* david.noveck@emc.com
> *Cc:* nfsv4@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [nfsv4] Potential schedules for BakeAThons in 2011
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4