On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. Some meeting venues have had insufficient places where five
> or so people could comfortably gather for informal meetings, while other
> venues did this just fine. One proposal has been that the Secretariat reserve
> large
I don't like this idea at all. For people that aren't staying at the
meeting hotel, the terminal room is often the only place where it is quiet.
Ear plugs only partially address the problem for those of us with really
sensitive hearing and some folks cannot use those ear plugs (e.g., when you
hav
On Aug 3, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> Instead, I think we should ensure that future venues have adequate space for
> both circulating between meeting rooms and for side conversations.
Just to be clear: you would rather that we pay higher meeting fees in exchange
for that adequate sp
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
> > Instead, I think we should ensure that future venues have adequate space
> for both circulating between meeting rooms and for side conversations.
>
> Just to be clear: you would rather that
i have no need to micro-manage the secretariat. and i greatly
appreciate the meeting space the secretariat provided on 34f.
and i think they got the message and will sort it out.
randy
On 03/08/2012, at 2:39 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i have no need to micro-manage the secretariat.
+1
seems to happen a lot around here...
--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 14:13 -0500, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Paul Hoffman
> wrote:
>
> On Aug 3, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
> > Instead, I think we should ensure that future venues have
> adequate space for both ci
>> i have no need to micro-manage the secretariat.
> seems to happen a lot around here...
symptom of too much free time on hands
randy
Either one - I'll direct a donation to the Open Internet Endowment for
meeting rooms. Or, we can increase the fees for legal requests as others
have been suggesting.
If you read the thread, I was responding to the takeover of the terminal
room as a meeting place. I was trying to be constructive
Yeah, I have tons of free time at these meetings.And, my response was
absolutely an attempt to micro-manage rather than provide suggestions on
how the situation could be better handled (as I don't think taking over the
terminal room is a good idea).
Mary.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Randy
I agree with randy. I've never had an issue finding a place to huddle/meet when
necessary at an ietf meeting venue. between the hallways, bar, etc I'm not sure
what the fuss is all about.
Tom
On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> i have no need to micro-manage the secretariat.
The issue that I experienced (and why I'm fussing) is that if you were
attending many sessions in the Regency rooms (and moving rooms between
sessions), it was extremely difficult to weave your way through the
corridor as many people were having their discussion directly in the middle
of the corri
Yes, the hallway congestion was a real issue at this meeting, and we are
already working on ways to make sure that we manage it differently when we
return next year. The refreshments will not be served in those same corridors,
as a start.
We are also working to address the desire for additiona
The narrowness of the corridoors, placement of food/drink and all that
was discussed in our wrap-up meeting this morning, and indeed the
issues you have raised were indentified as areas for improvement.
Since we are coming back to THIS hotel, there are certainly things
that can be done better,
Thanks!
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> The narrowness of the corridoors, placement of food/drink and all that
> was discussed in our wrap-up meeting this morning, and indeed the
> issues you have raised were indentified as areas for improvement.
> Since we are coming bac
On 08/03/2012 11:10 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> The narrowness of the corridoors, placement of food/drink and all that
> was discussed in our wrap-up meeting this morning, and indeed the
> issues you have raised were indentified as areas for improvement.
> Since we are coming back to THIS hot
Having missed only 2 meetings in 13 years, I can say that no venue
was perfect, but some were very good. It becomes a case of which
venues have the fewest "bad" things. I believe this venue was
exceptional at many things, very good at nearly all others, with the
bad things being food/snacks ser
On 3 Aug 2012, at 22:56, Mary Barnes wrote:
> The issue that I experienced (and why I'm fussing) is that if you were
> attending many sessions in the Regency rooms (and moving rooms between
> sessions), it was extremely difficult to weave your way through the corridor
> as many people were ha
On 3 Aug 2012, at 23:38, James Polk wrote:
>
> To me the exceptional aspects far outweighed the bad things - so I'm chalking
> this venue up as one of the best in 13 years of attending IETFs, and a
> *serious* contrast to the Paris venue (which I believe was one of the worst -
> each time we w
> "Mary" == Mary Barnes writes:
Mary> [MB] Yes, I know it's not at all a popular idea (to reduce
Mary> cookies), BUT we have had adequate space at previous meetings
Mary> for which we paid the same meeting fee, so it seems possible
Mary> to get space without increasing meeting
I agree with having the terminal room... let's get some signs on the stairs to
the fourth floor when we return.
When we return fall 2013, can we move all the break food into the space at the
top of the escalator, away from the doors in/out of Regency.
Let's also get a few more couches around the
> From: Paul Hoffman [paul.hoff...@vpnc.org]
>
> Instead, I propose that we simply designate the terminal room (which
> is already reserved for future meetings) be designated as meeting
> areas where talking is allowed / encouraged. Earplugs could be
> provided for people who really want a quiet E
+1 on keeping the terminal room a (mostly) quiet work area.
Rather, let's replicate the Quebec large lounge space if possible (at
all upcoming meetings).
Cheers,
Andy
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
>> From: Paul Hoffman [paul.hoff...@vpnc.org]
>>
>> Instead, I prop
Folks,
On 8/3/2012 3:38 PM, James Polk wrote:
Having missed only 2 meetings in 13 years, I can say that no venue was
perfect, but some were very good. It becomes a case of which venues have
the fewest "bad" things.
...
The crowded hallway we can't change.
We can change where the snacks are s
On 8/4/12 1:31 PM, "Dave Crocker" wrote:
>However the tendency of the community has been to express preference for
>the tourism of going to new places.
>
>If we really want venues to function towards some ideal, we need the
>benefit of a multi-visit learning curve.
>
>And it means we stop being t
>And it means we stop being tourists.
Depends where. I would be happy to be a tourist in Vancouver, Quebec,
Paris (assuming we can sort out the Hotel Klepto issue), and/or Berlin
every year.
R's,
John
PS: But not Orlando.
On 8/4/2012 4:24 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
On 8/4/12 1:31 PM, "Dave Crocker" wrote:
If we really want venues to function towards some ideal, we need the
benefit of a multi-visit learning curve.
...
Of course holding meetings in a range of locations, some new, also
provides the opportunity
On 05/08/2012, at 1:58 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> It's been amusing (not) to hear claims that the IETF needs to wander around
> the world for its meetings, for what is really a marketing campaign, to
> counter some of those other groups... who do indeed sit in one city for all
> of their formal
Hi Mark,
At 12:26 05-08-2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I live in Melbourne, and thus must travel for more than 24 hours
each way to just about every IETF meeting there is (the "asian"
meetings are at best 16 hours away, but often more due to routing).
Sometimes, much more.
And yet I don't see y
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:24 AM, SM wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> Again, choosing three or so locations ignores large parts of not only the
>> developing world (e.g., Africa, India), but also substantial portions of the
>> developed world with a reasonable track record of participation (e.g.,
>> Australia, N
Hi Vinayak,
At 20:49 07-08-2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
@SM : Where do you get this data. It will be interesting to chart the
data for IETF participants over the years by country / affliation. If
The list of participants for the last meeting is at
https://www.ietf.org/registration/ietf84/attenda
> There were 10 participants from Australia and 4 participants from New
> Zealand at the last IETF meeting. There was interest to have the IETF in
> New Zealand. I guess that it was considered as difficult to convince the
> cookie-eating mob that it was a good location.
I understand that New Ze
On 11/08/2012 14:07, JOHNSON, ALASTAIR (ALASTAIR) wrote:
>> There were 10 participants from Australia and 4 participants from New
>> Zealand at the last IETF meeting. There was interest to have the IETF in
>> New Zealand. I guess that it was considered as difficult to convince the
>> cookie-eatin
33 matches
Mail list logo
