IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Wed, 24 August 2011 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5959B21F8D6E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.453
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XPv+fFni+4Ou for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com (e38.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B967421F8D70 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by e38.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p7ODrGEw013855 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:53:16 -0600
Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p7OLSvhf170008 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:28:57 -0600
Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p7OLStb6000647 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:28:56 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-218-237.mts.ibm.com [9.65.218.237]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p7OLSscF032707 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:28:55 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p7OLSq4i011660; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:28:53 -0400
Message-Id: <201108242128.p7OLSq4i011660@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Geoff Mulligan <geoff.ietf@mulligan.com>
Subject: Re: Hyatt Taipei cancellation policy?
In-reply-to: <1314217708.1973.199.camel@d430>
References: <20110822191708.652C721F8C19@ietfa.amsl.com> <801FB726-F672-4F7F-8D9C-7ED37DB08672@cs.ucla.edu> <FE5EB7C9-C395-4B98-A0D4-8B2320F78C04@isoc.org> <66998320DD3FCC5628E32634@PST.JCK.COM> <F74DDD2D-163A-4CBF-99A5-E452CBB7C17F@isoc.org> <CE8FC485-DA54-491B-B57E-96DA2FE835FC@network-heretics.com> <34E4F50CAFA10349A41E0756550084FB0D55796B@PRVPEXVS04.corp.twcable.com> <E9A8F486-2327-4F48-B21A-6155CF334F21@network-heretics.com> <4E554C78.9000504@gmail.com> <tslr54a8v7s.fsf@mit.edu> <4E555B06.6000108@dcrocker.net> <4E555CB2.7070405@stpeter.im> <4E555DCD.2000001@bbiw.net> <1314217708.1973.199.camel@d430>
Comments: In-reply-to Geoff Mulligan <geoff.ietf@mulligan.com> message dated "Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:28:28 -0600."
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:28:52 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:29:10 -0000

Geoff Mulligan <geoff.ietf@mulligan.com> writes:

> Maybe the majority doesn't care one way or the other - they will just go
> wherever the meetings are held in which case:
>   let's make them easy to get to
>   cheap
>   decent food
>   one roof (with other hotels near-by)
>   cheap
>   and easy to get to

Having watched this debate play out in multiple venues (ICANN goes all
around the world 3x a year as well) over multiple years, I've come to
the following main conclusion:

1) you can't please all the people all the time, and there will be
griping no matter what we do. We've got 1200 attendees. That's a lot
of folk who have differing ideas of what is important. 

2) There is no perfect solution. There are too many variables, not all
of which are known in advance. And, everyone weighs various factors
differently. Convenience of travel, for instance, is very different
for US-based folk vs. Chinese and Australians.

3) The absolutely most important thing to get right is a meeting venue
that works for getting work done. In my mind, the really key things
here are:

  a) everyone can (easily) walk to the meeting site (this facilitates
     mingling, including at the bar)
     
  b) there is ample local food within walking distance (again for
     mingling/meetings)

  c) proper facilities (adequate meeting room, wireless, range of room
     rate options, and yes, I suppose cookies, etc.)

If you get the above right, the other inconveniences don't matter
(except maybe visa hassles). Or more precisely, folk can (and just
should) deal with it.

Seriously, taking one extra plane hop (or gasp! riding a train!) is
just noise, when talking about a meeting that lasts 5+ solid days.
I'd much rather take an extra hop to get to a meeting venue that works
well, then save a few hours travel time to reach a venue that doesn't
have places to eat.

Etc.

Hub cities are no panacea. I too like Minneapolis. As a venue, it
meets the key IETF needs as better than most places we've visited. It
has good airline connectivity (not perfect, but good). It meets the
key criteria above. You can also walk everywhere underground in the
winter, so the argument that it's "too cold" seems specious. Etc.

But does everyone like Minneapolis? Apparently not. I'm told that the
IAOC has stopped going there because they were getting too many
complaints. People do get tired of going to the same places, even if a
location works.

I've concluded that going to new places is better than hubs. Even
though I rarely take vacation in conjunction with meetings, getting
1/2 a day to sight see or even being able to walk into town for dinner
in a new location is a positive thing over being at the same places
too often.

Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email