Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:00:53 EST, RJ Atkinson said: > I've seen others do similarly. For example, I've > never run into Valdis at an IETF meeting, but he has an > impact. If anybody's seen me at an IETF meeting, they were talking to a Klingon impostor. As John Beck will testify, I don't

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

Said another way, I do not believe that the increased number of people has harmed the S/N ratio in any of my WGs, nor any that I attended. The people who participate participate and the people who don't don't. I don't have a problem with that. It seems like

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, RJ Atkinson writ es: >Someone else noted: >>Participation by mail before participation in person. > >EXAMPLE > >I was an active participant (e.g. ask folks in Denmark >who were involved with early MIME stuff) via email long >before I showed up in person. To

RE: 49th-IETF conf room planning

Someone else noted: >Participation by mail before participation in person. EXAMPLE I was an active participant (e.g. ask folks in Denmark who were involved with early MIME stuff) via email long before I showed up in person. To this day, I don't make every meeting. Before ever showing u

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

What I have observed is that the discussions in the face to face WG meetings are very useful, and frequently result in resolution (to be ratified by the WG's mailing list) of both technical and procedural issues (if the meetings are not useful for these pur

RE: 49th-IETF conf room planning

On 19 Dec 2000 at 11:08 -0800, Matthew Goldman apparently wrote: > Speaking for myself, but I'm sure this applies to more than just me: I read > the relevant RFCs and drafts ("did my homework"), but I am not "active" by > the strict definitions some have used in this thread (at least not yet). I >

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

> Speaking for myself, but I'm sure this applies to more than just me: I read > the relevant RFCs and drafts ("did my homework"), but I am not "active" by > the strict definitions some have used in this thread (at least not yet). I > pre-paid the meeting fee (in good faith that in return for accep

RE: 49th-IETF conf room planning

nal Message- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:55 PM > To: Matthew Goldman > Cc: 'Keith Moore'; 'Randall Gellens'; Daniel Senie; Michael > Richardson; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 49th-IETF con

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

Tripp Lilley wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Matthew Goldman wrote: > > > I also disagree with you regarding hotel rates. Pre-negotiated block rates > > for meetings are around the same price as we paid in San Diego for a similar > > type of hotel (clearly, Vegas hotels are both much better than

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

This suggestion will I hope generate much heated discussion. We could always ask the working group chairs to identify the contributing members. Those who submit Internet-Drafts can also be added to the list. These members like the WG Chairs, ADs, ... can have stickers added to their badges. Th

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 08:46:31PM -0800, Matthew Goldman wrote: > It makes absolutely no sense to have someone pre-pay a meeting fee, pay to > travel to a location, attempt to attend a meeting, and be turned-away. > > In addition, turning away people who wish to attend seems counter to the > IET

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:35:38PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > > > I fervently hope not. Las Vegas is the tobacco smoking capital of > > > the U.S. -- higher rates than anywhere else in the country, including > > > areas where they grow the stuff. It is also very hard to find good > > > quality

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

> It makes absolutely no sense to have someone pre-pay a meeting fee, pay to > travel to a location, attempt to attend a meeting, and be turned-away. I disagree in the strongest possible terms. it makes a great deal of sense if the purpose of the meeting is to get technical work done, rather th

RE: 49th-IETF conf room planning

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:36 PM > To: Matthew Goldman > Cc: 'Randall Gellens'; Daniel Senie; Michael Richardson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning > > > > > I fervently hope not. Las Vegas is t

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

> > I fervently hope not. Las Vegas is the tobacco smoking capital of > > the U.S. -- higher rates than anywhere else in the country, including > > areas where they grow the stuff. It is also very hard to find good > > quality food (but is awash in cheap buffets). > > Sorry, but I'd prefer Vega

RE: 49th-IETF conf room planning

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Matthew Goldman wrote: > I also disagree with you regarding hotel rates. Pre-negotiated block rates > for meetings are around the same price as we paid in San Diego for a similar > type of hotel (clearly, Vegas hotels are both much better than and much > worse than the Sherat

RE: 49th-IETF conf room planning

> From: Randall Gellens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 4:42 PM > To: Daniel Senie; Michael Richardson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning > > At 9:32 PM -0500 12/13/00, Daniel Senie wrote: > > > I

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

At 9:32 PM -0500 12/13/00, Daniel Senie wrote: > I am starting to wonder if we're going to have to hold the meetings > primarily in Las Vegas. I fervently hope not. Las Vegas is the tobacco smoking capital of the U.S. -- higher rates than anywhere else in the country, including areas where

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

may i suggest New Orleans as a possible location? Afaik, there's been no IETF here. The city has ample hotel/convention space plus the amenities of the French Quarter; always a fave. Also, good air connects within the USA,etc. /m/ - Original Message - From: "Lane Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

At 20:22 13/12/2000 -0800, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: >This would need to be integrated with the general registration mechanism >to have any chance of being representative. Or you can hand out yellow >badges to those who filled out the form. If the room is full, the white >badges get kicked out...

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

> "Daniel" == Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Daniel> meetings primarily in Las Vegas. Vegas has the advantage of TONS Daniel> of hotel rooms, plenty of meeting space, and everything's close Daniel> together. The hotel rooms are relatively cheap (no idea about the Dan

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

Michael Richardson wrote: > > > "Rosen," == Rosen, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rosen,> On this subject, may I suggest that we have outgrown hotel > Rosen,> conference facilities. The place where we have outgrown them is > Rosen,> hallways -- hotel facilities simply do not

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

its appropriate that the 51st ietf is gonna be in the '51st state" - we've been playing with market forces for 23 years (18 years of margaret thatcher then john major, then tony blair) - solutons in london will involve vickrey auctions for the seats - themoney will be used to pay for upgrading th

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

This would need to be integrated with the general registration mechanism to have any chance of being representative. Or you can hand out yellow badges to those who filled out the form. If the room is full, the white badges get kicked out Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > At 13:30 13/12/2000 -0800

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

> "Rosen," == Rosen, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Rosen,> On this subject, may I suggest that we have outgrown hotel Rosen,> conference facilities. The place where we have outgrown them is Rosen,> hallways -- hotel facilities simply do not have adequate hallways This, thi

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

On Thu, 14 Dec 100, Johnny Eriksson wrote: > Pete Resnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 12/13/00 at 1:30 PM -0800, Lane Patterson wrote: > > > > >Would the IETF organizers consider requesting WG/BOF attendance > > >plans upon registration? > > > > They do ask when the meeting is schedul

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

Pete Resnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/13/00 at 1:30 PM -0800, Lane Patterson wrote: > > >Would the IETF organizers consider requesting WG/BOF attendance > >plans upon registration? > > They do ask when the meeting is scheduled. It is up to the chair to > estimate appropriately. A c

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

At 13:30 13/12/2000 -0800, Lane Patterson wrote: >This has likely been proposed previously, but I would like to >raise the topic of mapping adequate conf rooms to WGs and BOFs. >I have now attended 3 WGs that had to turn away attendees due >to extreme lack of space, and several others that had ple

Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning

On 12/13/00 at 1:30 PM -0800, Lane Patterson wrote: >Would the IETF organizers consider requesting WG/BOF attendance >plans upon registration? They do ask when the meeting is scheduled. It is up to the chair to estimate appropriately. -- Pete Resnick Eudora Enginee

RE: 49th-IETF conf room planning

On this subject, may I suggest that we have outgrown hotel conference facilities. The place where we have outgrown them is hallways -- hotel facilities simply do not have adequate hallways to accommodate us. Much of the value of the meeting is the impromptu "BOF"s that occur in the hallways and o