![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
David Morris wrote: >You are making the suggestion too hard ... though it might also feed >the scheduling process ... all that is needed to make rooms large enough >is to know how many folks who would attend if there were no conflicts. >Conflicts would reduce the size. You assume the hotel has an infinite supply of large rooms. It used to be that when a group exceeded its estimated size there was a room swap in real time. That doesn't happen now because there aren't any under-capacity rooms to swap with. Unless the location choices are restricted to areas with very large hotels, the only way to avoid moving to a convention center would be booking hotel pairs with the meetings spread between them. >Of course, artful creation of conflicts could also reduce room size >requirements ;-:) This occurred to me as well, and what ever process might be used would have to be totally automated to prevent any accusation that the secretariat created specific conflicts. I trust they would not go out of their way to do such, but some members of the community seem to be paranoid. ======================================================= Tony Hain <mailto:tonyhain at microsoft.com> tonyhain at microsoft.com
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.