Subject: [Mtgvenue] Secretariat spreadsheet

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:21:11 -0500

Here is the relevant portion of the message:

-.-.-

I am attaching a spreadsheet analysis of how past successful IETF 
meeting venues would fare under the document criteria.

As you will see, the analysis shows Beijing to be the only venue 
considered that does not meet one of the Mandatory criteria (unless we 
have a host who can fix the network issues, in which case all Mandatory 
criteria should be met).  Beijing, Seoul and Taipei have significant 
issues and do not meet a  number of the Important criteria.

Every venue has some issue, which is to be expected, with San Francisco 
and Vancouver having the fewest (one each).  Of the listed venues, the 
following have 3 or fewer issues:
	San Francisco Hilton
	Prague Hilton
	Vancouver Hyatt
	Berlin InterContinental
	London Hilton Metropole
	Yokohama Pacifico Convention Center

The following venues have more than 3 issues:
	Beijing Shangri-La
	Taipei International Convention Center
	Seoul Conrad

Please keep in mind:
1.  The venues considered in the analysis are all venues where IETF has 
held successful meetings in the past, and in some cases, has meetings 
booked for the future.
2.  Some of the “issues” (?)  may or may not actually be issues once 
the document is finalized and/or with further research (some of these 
items were not part of our criteria when we conducted the site 
visit/meeting so I cannot advise whether the criteria are met).
3.   I expect that the analysis document will highlight some of the 
issues with the criteria as they currently exist, with the big question 
being, given that we have held successful meetings in each of these 
venues, are we satisfied with the result?

Of course, whatever the criteria finalized by the WG, we will do our 
best to thoroughly investigate each selected venue to provide the 
information required by the IASA to make a well informed decision.

-.-.-

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:48:43 -0400

> meeting venues would fare under the document criteria.

I found it to be an interesting read, thank you for having put this together.
I think that it might be useful to explain some of the yellow boxes..?

e.g: IETF97's "budget hotels" yellow box seems questionable to me.
     IETF97 would also seem to have satisfied the lounge need.

    > Please keep in mind: 1.  The venues considered in the analysis are all
    > venues where IETF has held successful meetings in the past, and in some
    > cases, has meetings booked for the future.

I think that we need to get some data on locations which were rejected.
That involves some time with IAOC people. I hope that there are no NDA issues.

    > 2.  Some of the “issues”
    > (?)  may or may not actually be issues once the document is finalized
    > and/or with further research (some of these items were not part of our
    > criteria when we conducted the site visit/meeting so I cannot advise
    > whether the criteria are met).  3.  I expect that the analysis document
    > will highlight some of the issues with the criteria as they currently
    > exist, with the big question being, given that we have held successful
    > meetings in each of these venues, are we satisfied with the result?

I'm not sure that "successful meeting" is a binary result.
We run into adversity and we attempt to overcome or work-around the problems.

The network issue in Beijing was "overcome" by adding WPA, which we trialed
at some cost at the prior meeting.  We have since turned that sunk cost into
fixing a "bug" into a feature where we essentially discourage use of the
unencryped network.

Also, the network limit seems to perculate into multiple boxes, and I think
that maybe there are too many strikes as a result.

I'd like to hear from Mary Barnes about whether or not she found meals
and groceries, assuming she attended 79.
As a person with rather peculiar food related anxieties, I chose not to make
79 the meeting I would not attend that year based upon that.  (in fact,
there were family and financial considerations as well)

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 12:03:35 -0400

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I am attaching a spreadsheet analysis of how past successful IETF meeting
> venues would fare under the document criteria.
>
> considered that does not meet one of the Mandatory criteria (unless we have
> a host who can fix the network issues, in which case all Mandatory criteria
> should be met).  Beijing, Seoul and Taipei have significant issues and do
> not meet a  number of the Important criteria.
>

My concern on seeing this list would be to ask whether we have implicit
assumptions and biases on what is possible.  That all of the venues with
multiple issues are in Asia - and only one in Asia is not - is concerning.

Regards,
Alia

> 2.  Some of the “issues” (?)  may or may not actually be issues once the
> document is finalized and/or with further research (some of these items
> were not part of our criteria when we conducted the site visit/meeting so I
> cannot advise whether the criteria are met).
> 3.   I expect that the analysis document will highlight some of the issues
> with the criteria as they currently exist, with the big question being,
> given that we have held successful meetings in each of these venues, are we
> satisfied with the result?
>
> Of course, whatever the criteria finalized by the WG, we will do our best
> to thoroughly investigate each selected venue to provide the information
> required by the IASA to make a well informed decision.
>
> -.-.-
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>
>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:47:15 -0500

With regards to the question on food, that meeting ended up being one of
the best for me due to the hotel restaurant and staff.  I happened to meet
the food service manager the first morning there at breakfst.  When I
mentioned that I was on a restricted diet, he got the head chef to come
talk to me about how they could accommodate my requirements.  He then got
Chef Eric from the kitchen and said that he would work with me during the
week.  I only had to go to the hotel restaurant and ask for Chef Eric and
he would come out and let me know my options for the meal.  I never ate
better at an IETF meeting.  I went sight seeing on Saturday morning after
the meeting and when I went to dinner, Chef Eric asked where I was at
lunch. When I told him, he said I should have let him know and he would
have made me a box lunch ;)   I also ate at one of the other restaurants in
the hotel during the week and they were also accommodating .  There was a
near by market in Beijing - not a full service grocery but some basic
stuff.  But, I would guess given the service at that hotel that they would
have gone shopping for you ;)  This whole situation gets back to a point I
try to make that if the hotel *knows* that we have some of these
requirements they can plan ahead.   I think it's important that it's
discussed while the contract is being negotiated.  I tried to get the staff
to arrange snacks during afternoon break in London to avoid having the
cookies co-mingled intermittently with cheese and veggies.  This was during
setup and would have taken < 5 minutes.  The staff refused to do it - they
said it would upset the chef.  I would love to see a snack area that's
dedicated to those with allergies to avoid this problem altogether - e.g,
one table with veggies and cheese (if that's being served) with items
individually wrapped as a lot of folks seem to use their hands and it they
grab a cookie and then pick up fruit they can be cross contaminating the
fruit or veggies if they also pick those up with their hands which I've
seen done.  The same thing in the morning - separate the fruit from the
pastries, etc.  As it is often the case, cross contamination is a big issue
(e.g., using the tongs for crackers for cheese).

In terms of some of the other hotels that seemed to make the top list, the
hotel in Berlin was not at all acceptable when it came to gluten-free -
co-mingled food at breaks and foods at restaurants labeled gluten-free not
being gluten-free in the end.  It does require that staff are trained, but
again discussing this at the time of contract negotiation could resolve the
problem and allow them to plan ahead.  These problems aren't things that
typically the staff that you interact with directly on the spot can
address.  It's not their fault if they can't meet your dietary needs if
their management hasn't made them aware that it's possible.

I had no problems at all in Taipei again because of the hotel options and
even some of the local area restaurants were very accommodating.   And, the
same for Seoul, although when I looked at the summary for that one, it
appears it got bad marks due to lack of local area hotels.  I had no
problem finding a very reasonably priced hotel nearby.  And, the hotel
restaurant at the Conrad had great gluten-free options.  It's actually US
hotels that are often the worst with European hotels being a bit better,
followed by the Asian hotels.

Thanks for asking.

Mary.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:46:40 -0400

Hi,

These are replies to several messages in the thread at once.

>      IETF97 would also seem to have satisfied the lounge need.

I also wonder about 79's cheap alternative and available food &
grocery shopping questions.  I did find some things about 79 to be a
little problematic, but I ate quite cheaply that week unless I stayed
in the hotel.  The subway was cheap, reliable, and close enough and
there were a few things right in the immediate neighbouhood.  And
there was an (admittedly small but complete enough for me) grocery
about three doors away.

Also, Yokohama got dinged here on the "one roof" item, but my
impression of the response was that people considered this basically
to _be_ a one-roof arrangement, despite the hotels being formally two
buildings.  (Of course, maybe this is just an indication that "one
roof" is the wrong goal, and that we ought to state the goal
differently.)

> I'm not sure that "successful meeting" is a binary result.

I've been a little leery of that test all along, because I'm not sure
that we have an operational definition of "successful meeting".
_Were_ all of these successful?  What would the test be?  I thought
one of the tests was supposed to be, "Did it meet all of this?"

> that maybe there are too many strikes as a result.

We've talked about that issue before, but the problem is that the
network is _really important_ to us.  It's not too surprising then
that there are absolutely required and also quite important possible
strikes in that area.  In _most_ places where there'll be no
contentiousness, these will all be the same anwyway.  But as more and
more national governments desire more intrusive messing with the
network, the divergence on these may get worse, and we probably want
all of them in order to do serious evaluation.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 05:47:15PM -0500, Mary Barnes wrote:

> requirements they can plan ahead.

Well, yes, but it is also dependent on the class of hotel, the level
of service usually provided there, and the culture of hospitality in
which you find yourself.  My experiences generally in China have been
of hosts extremely eager to make for an excellent experience, and of
course we were at a hotel that is well known for its sumptuous level
of service.  We don't normally have such a swanky place to stay.  But
a hotel chain that is used to dealing with celebrity demands is
doubtless well-qualified to deal with complicated food needs :)

> setup and would have taken < 5 minutes.  The staff refused to do it - they

See above about "class of hotel and level of service usually provided
there."  I think the feedback has been clear that the London Metropole
staff could use a refresher on how to welcome hotel guests.  When the
IASA last announced it for a future meeting last, there were a number
of mitigations that were added; but I mostly got the impression that
people accepted it because nothing else can apparently accommodate us
in such a convenient location, and so we're all just willing to put up
with the incredibly surly service.

> being gluten-free in the end.

This suggests an issue that is a difficulty in the evaluation
criteria: we have some judgements in the document, but it's not clear
to me how objective observations linked to those judgements after the
fact can feed back in.  I can't tell whether this is a gap in the
document or a different problem or something I've just misunderstood
in the current text.

> multiple issues are in Asia - and only one in Asia is not - is concerning.

Well, if you factor out the network case, things look quite a bit
different.  There is a major contracting mismatch, however, between
North American and European practies, and those in much of Asia.  I
think it is always going to be quite challenging to deliver the
overflow hotel desire in the same way, and maybe the answer is that
people need to fend for themselves in Asian locations because of the
way those hotel markets work.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]