> > On Feb 26, 2007, at 11:42 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: [ snip ]
> But your arguments about financial considerations are, in your own > words, a straw-man. The _very_first_post_ in this thread said: > > > It appears that we can expect hotel costs to be quite a bit lower > > than than at most recent NANOG meetings (perhaps as low as $100 per > > night). Flights might cost a little more than they would for a > > mainland meeting, but non-scientific poking at the usual travel web > > sites doesn't seem to indicate that they would be ridiculous. The > > proposal we have accommodates the networking requirements of NANOG > > meetings. > > It then asked things like whether you were more or less likely to go > to the DR than Canada. These are perfectly valid questions. You've > brought up some counter-points, but I think we all get the point. I > just don't think we all agree with your PoV. Which is what makes > NANOG so great. :) I don't disagree that these are perfectly valid questions, but let's be fair, the SC did ask for wide opinions. Even if that was not the intention, what did they expect? But good point on PoV. There is not enough participation here to extract a reliable PoV. These types of things either need to be brought up in the community meeting, reflected in the record of the minutes of the SC (still bad) or, when they are brought here, they are open and transparent, like the raising of the fees. > Back on topic, I've already said I don't believe the DR will be a > problem vis-a-vis travel policies, and I would like to go to the DR > for NANOG. Anyone else wanna answer the questions which were asked? To that particular question, I am not keen on NANOG doing anything outside of the english speaking Caribbean. They do not have to accept a location simply because there is a sponsor. -M<
