I also would vote to return to Minneapolis again and again even permanently.
Geoff On Aug 6, 2012, at 2:32 PM, "Richard Shockey" <rich...@shockey.us> wrote: > > > [RS> ] +1 and no employer ever argued that going to Minneapolis was a > boondoggle. The Hilton in Minneapolis of all the IETF meetings I’ve > attended has the most optimal layout of meeting rooms etc. > > > If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the best > choice IMHO. It's very reasonably priced, easy for many to get to and the > hotel has adequate space for us (even back when we had many more attendees). > Personally, the weather is not critical to me, since I spend the vast > majority of my time in the hotel meeting rooms, so I'm very happy if we meet > there in March and November. > > Mary > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > <chris.dearl...@baesystems.com> wrote: > I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded the > hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly gone for IETF > recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly cheap hotels, and that I > have only been to North American and Europe (but that statistic includes > Vancouver and the even further away western US cities down to San Diego). And > of course I fly economy, and it's much cheaper including a Saturday night in > your trip, even at the cost of an extra night in a hotel (at least it is from > here). An almost exception was Paris this year where I was staying fairly > cheaply, but that was a cost-shared trip between me and my employer, and I > didn't fly (I went by train - though that's not cheaper, just better). Paris > has cheap(er) hotels and a metro I understand, so I felt less location > constrained. > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 > chris.dearl...@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, > Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) [mailto:nurit.sprec...@nsn.com] > Sent: 06 August 2012 15:07 > To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; > ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity) > > ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- > This message originates from outside our organisation, > either from an external partner or from the internet. > Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > When you are not close (time), flight cost may become higher in the priority > (over hotem).... > Flying to Vancouver for me for example is the most expensive trip....even > though the city is amazing and the host was wonderful! > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext > Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:56 PM > To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity) > > Dublin's problem was that the venue was isolated from the city. This has also > been the case with e.g. San Diego. (I'm assuming no personal car.) Contrast > with Minneapolis (and several other places) where you were right in the city. > Being in a city is better for lunch and dinner options, taking a break to go > to a bookshop (or to buy something you forgot to bring) and so on. (I'm > deliberately not including tourism here.) > > However at the moment my priorities to make being able to attend possible > would be time (so the closer to me the better - I realise that's impossible > globally), cost (hotel first, flight second, rest is noise) and the ability > to plan ahead to only attend part of the week. This is the current economic > reality. Dublin actually scores quite well on those for me. > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 > chris.dearl...@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, > Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Daniele Ceccarelli > Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24 > To: Andrew Sullivan; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity) > > ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- > This message originates from outside our organisation, > either from an external partner or from the internet. > Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Dublin panned? I thought it was one of the best venues and locations of the > last meetings. > > What about Italy or Spain? I've never heard about an IETF in Italy. I'm ok > with meetings outside Italy since i like traveling very much, but i was > wondering why it has never been taken into account in the past meetings. Is > it expensive? I think Italy and Spain are much cheaper than France, UK or > Sweden, aren't they? > > BR > Daniele > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On > >Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan > >Sent: lunedì 6 agosto 2012 14.06 > >To: ietf@ietf.org > >Subject: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity) > > > >On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 11:58:19AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> enough merely to have excellent staff. We need to go back to the > >> better places and benefit from the learning curve. This > >doesn't mean > >> "no new venues" but it means fewer. > > > >As a practical matter, may I ask about which venues you want > >to return to? I get your argument in principle, but it seems > >to me that there has been quite a lot of complaining in the > >past. The one factor that seems to me most likely to reduce > >complaints -- weather -- is evidently beyond the Secretariat's > >or IAOC's control. > > > >People seem inclined to return to the Hyatt in Vancouver, > >elevators notwithstanding. We're going to do that. (I don't > >understand why the previous Vencouver venue was less desirable > >-- to me, these venues were very similar, and not very far > >apart. I note, however, that the previous two Vancouver > >visits were near the end of the year, when it rains all the > >time in Vancouver.) > > > >People complained at length about the venue in Paris, so I > >presume it's out. > > > >Some people complained about the hotel room prices and travel > >expense in Taipei, though I heard remarks that it was a good venue. > >Should we try to return there? > > > >People complained in advance about getting to Québec, although > >afterwards I heard lots of good noises about that venue. I > >note that the weather was great. Should we try to return? > > > >I don't recall much complaining about the Prague venue in > >2011, which was striking to me because very little seemed > >different to me compared to our first visit there. Perhaps > >this is evidence of the "tuning" > >you suggest (ensuring the water bottles were plastic, for instance). > >But I note the weather was excellent. > > > >Beijing? I guess Maastricht is out. Anaheim (FWIW, I thought > >that was an example of a terrible location, but many people > >seemed happy with it)? Hiroshima? Stockholm? San Francisco > >(we thought the crime at Paris was bad, yet didn't complain > >about being smack up against the Tenderloin)? Or there's the > >old standby, Minneapolis; perhaps we could do it in March. > >The Dublin venue was panned by large numbers of people. > >Philadelphia, people complained about expense. Chicago, too > >(combined with hotel renovations). > > > >That gets us back through 2007. Which of the venues do you > >think we should return to, to which we already haven't > >returned or planned to return? And why? > > > >For what it's worth, I would not complain about returning to > >any of those venues; I personally had good meetings at all of > >them except Hiroshima, which I missed due to other > >commitments. That includes both Maastricht and Dublin, which > >were both apparently trials for large numbers of others. > > > >Best, > > > >A > > > >-- > >Andrew Sullivan > >a...@anvilwalrusden.com > > > > > > ******************************************************************** > This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended > recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. > You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or > distribute its contents to any other person. > ******************************************************************** > >
