Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was: are we getting complacent? Good job!)

Curtis Villamizar <cvillamizar@infinera.com> Tue, 09 August 2011 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <cvillamizar@infinera.com>
X-Original-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B543921F8BFE for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, PLING_QUERY=1.39]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5aBLffUpKE8F for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sv-casht-prod2.infinera.com (sv-casht-prod2.infinera.com [8.4.225.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E0821F8BFB for <81attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com ([fe80::dc68:4e20:6002:a8f9]) by sv-casht-prod2.infinera.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:49:01 -0700
From: Curtis Villamizar <cvillamizar@infinera.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.ac.kr>
Thread-Topic: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was: are we getting complacent? Good job!)
Thread-Index: AQHMViUGHWdkj60Fx0qMjUT1jK++85UUmULg
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:49:00 +0000
Message-ID: <B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB07612A91@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com>
References: <4E34C3A9.2020502@att.com> <A5B9F059BE69461F8008EBECD84A1E67@china.huawei.com> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A6402713C27@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> <3DA9637F-1C72-43CB-B040-49F2A6FF26D9@softarmor.com> <4E398F03.1000806@dcrocker.net> <CA6BA2FE-13E7-438F-B943-7659A37DB3C5@cisco.com> <744D8CA9-9C01-41A5-A22C-CDF2F4E904EF@fugue.com> <p06240611ca64d0f07a2b@loud.pensive.org> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1108072112110.14256@sjc-vpn7-506.cisco.com> <p06240601ca65afd19752@loud.pensive.org> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1108080830460.18801@sjc-vpn7-506.cisco.com> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213914A1EBA927@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <CAFgODJfSOHdt-Lzz6bpnHSCSi5kLMu3Yjjh2xU5b35Dtwm5tRw@mail.gmail.com> <B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB076127BF@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com> <CAFgODJecoePK7RX=+4DpwZ93qKE1HvjBq7vPOEkToxy0LfnOXg@mail.gmail.com> <B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB07612885@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera. com> <FF871B758C55949D49F19663@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <FF871B758C55949D49F19663@PST.JCK.COM>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.100.99.21]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "81attendees@ietf.org" <81attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was: are we getting complacent? Good job!)
X-BeenThere: 81attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF 81 Attendee List <81attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/81attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:81attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:48:33 -0000

John,

I agree with you but there is no easy statistic to get at such as how many active WGs didn't meet because the chairs did not attend and how many WG draft authors didn't attend.  All I was saying is that there was nothing obvious in the attendance statistics that we can easily obtain.

Curtis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@jck.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 4:44 PM
> To: Curtis Villamizar; Dae Young KIM
> Cc: 81attendees@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was: are we
> getting complacent? Good job!)
> 
> 
> 
> --On Monday, August 08, 2011 20:41 +0000 Curtis Villamizar
> <cvillamizar@infinera.com> wrote:
> 
> > There are many things for IAOC to consider.  It is worth
> > noting that attendance does not seem to be affected by
> > location:  Quebec 1127, Prague 1229, Beijing 1207, Maastricht
> > 1192, Anaheim 1248, Hiroshima 1152, Stockholm 1124, San
> > Francisco 1186, Minneapolis 962, Dublin 1183, Philadelphia
> > 1174, Vancouver 1128, Chicago 1175, Prague 1193, San Diego
> > 1245, Montreal 1257, ...
> 
> Curtis,
> 
> Just in the interest of good statistical practice, the only
> thing total attendance figures are good for is the P/L
> statement.  That is legitimate and important to the IAOC, but
> has little to do with effective IETF functioning (and that
> assumes that there are not significant number of day passes or
> other cheap admissions in those totals).    Otherwise, one needs
> to look at attendance from outside a particular area, the
> long-term average attendance of people who happen to be from
> that area, and the "attending because it is close or a
> curiosity" numbers separately and think about the effects on
> IETF effectiveness.  I am not, for the record, claiming that any
> of those groups are unimportant... they are, however, different.
> 
> To illustrate how that works, suppose Anaheim included 250
> locals who hadn't been at an IETF meeting before or since and
> Beijing including mostly hard-core repeat attendees, whether
> from China or not.  That would make Beijing a relatively high
> attendance meeting and Anaheim a relatively low attendance one
> as far as getting IETF work done is concerned, despite the
> apparent relationships of the figures above.  It would also make
> Minneapolis look close to the others in attendance if there
> wasn't a large local contingent who don't otherwise attend
> there. Note that I'm not claiming those thing happened with any
> of the three meetings -- I haven't seen, much less thought
> about, the numbers and have no reason to believe any of those
> hypotheses are true.   But it is the sort of thing we need to
> consider if we are trying to evaluate numbers.
> 
> It is also difficult to calibrate the meaning of all of the
> usual whining when long-term projections are concerned.  There
> are at least some number of people who are sufficiently
> committed to their work in the IETF that, if a very unattractive
> (to them or their organizations) location is picked, they will
> complain and attend (not necessarily in that order), so we count
> them in the attendance figures and decide the meeting was an
> attendance-success.  But, if we provide them with several
> unattractive locations in a row, maybe they (or their
> organizations) reconsider participation in the IETF.  The odds
> of figuring out that situation is occurring from either
> attendance figures or quickly-assembled surveys is very low; by
> the time the effects are actually felt, it is too late.
> 
> Unless your point is that almost nothing we do is likely to make
> more than about 300 or 400 difference in total attendees no
> matter what we do and where we go.  If so, I'd tend to agree
> with that, at least within very broad limits, but note that a
> drop of a few hundred attendees for several meetings in a row
> could have really nasty effects on the budget.
> 
>     john