Thanks Marshall, I had suspect the process was something like that. I had not realized how much the pre picking the dates reduced the options.
On Aug 27, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Cullen Jennings <flu...@cisco.com> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > > On 24/08/2011 23:12, Keith Moore wrote: > >> Maybe there needs to be some sort of voting system for future venues. > > > > First of all, remember that the community asked for venue selections > > 2 to 3 years in advance. I don't think that many people can predict > > if they will attend a meeting 2 years from now. > > > > This proposal would require that the secretariat works out 3-4 proposals > > for meeting locations in great detail. That is a lot more work than > > the current approach: > > Really? that is fascinating in itself. I had assume that the current meeting > selection did consider more than one place. > > Of course it does. For example, for the last meeting there were a number of > venues considered, most of which were knocked out quickly, say because they > were already booked for "our" week. Eventually, it boiled down to Vancouver > vs QC, which were pretty even in every regard except for the travel > situation. Thus, the survey. That rarely happens if the past 5 years are any > guide. > > I think that the meeting selection process is inherently iterative. Pseudo > code might be something like > > - Find a list of all venues we can in the target area for the target week. > The number of these is rarely if ever more than 10. > > - do an evaluation of venues for availability and suitability > > - remove any sites that are not available or are unsuitable. > > - rank the remainder for suitability, and do a more thorough evaluation, > focusing more on the higher ranked locations. > > - repeat the last 3 steps until convergence, tightening the filters based on > what's learned about the sites > > At the end of the process, there may be only be one place left, but it > certainly was not the only one considered. > > Until recently, sponsor availability was an important part of venue ranking. > Now, with the 3 year out meeting selection process, that coupling will > largely (but not entirely) go away. Basically, this change IMO increases the > risk of not getting a sponsor, in return for a better choice of available > venues. I suspect it will take a few years before we will see what the actual > cost/benefit ratio is for this change. > > Regards > Marshall > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
