On 26/08/2011 16:48, Mary Barnes wrote:
> [MB] I've not seen a single person advocate a 0:3:0 schedule and it's only
> less
> cheaper for all participants (not just US) because the hotel rates are
> extremely
> reasonable (<$150 as I recall). It is definitely less expensive for the
> vast
> majority of participants than NA cities like Quebec City and San Francisco
> that
> travel by air. BUT, I think you are missing what we are saying overall - the
> major reasons some of us prefer Minneapolis is because it meets what some of
> us
> have been saying over and over as far a key factors for meetings:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68656.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68727.html
I like Minneapolis as meeting location too, assuming that the visa troubles we
had there last time are solved, and I'd be happy to make it the default location
for US meetings.
However, we have said that we want to meet all over the planet. That means that
we have to go elsewhere somewhere, even if there is a good and cheaper
meeting location available elsewhere, but in the wrong region. The same goes
for the meeting weeks, if a good hotel option isn't available in a meeting week
but is available a week or so earlier/later, then under the present rules,
it has to be discarded.
Henk
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
http://www.uijterwaal.nl
Phone: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
(John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
