Re: [ericas] IETF Meeting in South America

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 05/24/2013 07:52 PM, Juliao Braga wrote:
> Hello Stephen,
> 
> Probably I'm lost. So I need some answers.

Sure.

In my mind at least there's a 0-th level requirement
that comes before these:

0. Make the Internet better by getting more geographically
diverse, technically good, input and participation.

And again you do not need to be at meetings to participate.
Email is fine.

Of course if you want to do lots of IETF stuff, then getting
to meetings becomes important.

> 1. What we looking for?
> 1.1. Realize a IETF below the Equator line (Buenos Aires is a great option)?
> 1.2. Encouraging people of so-called "emerging countries" to participate
> in IETF meetings (in person or remotely)?

1.2 for me. But I'm also in favour of 1.1, though at a lower
priority.

> 
> 2. Why?
> 2.1. (1.2) <=> (1.1)? My answer is NO!

I don't get that.

> 2.2. IETF needs more people to work? My answer is YES! Protocols are in
> change, new technologies (ontologies, Semantic Web, ...), new
> techniques, etc.

Sort of. I think we need more people who are technically
clueful about stuff, for a wide set of different kinds of
stuff.

> 2.3. We want more people to participate, effectively (a.k.a. Melinda
> three points)? So, what do we need to do?
> 
> 3. What kind of things should we discuss?
> 3.1. Costs of travel and stay? In the context of this can be irrelevant
> (we can participate remotely...). In any place of the world, costs are
> equivalent, I think.
> 3.2. Show what do IETF, ISOC, and others for people who do not know yet?
> 3.3. Food an meals in the IETF meetings?

Seems ok, but too much focus on your 3.x often distract people
on IETF lists.

> 4. Some observations:
> 4.1. The personal attendance at meetings of the IETF are falling after
> year 2000. See the blue line at Figure 3 (Figura 3, in Portuguese) in

The dot-com bust was the biggest factor in the decline in
numbers compared to 1999/2000. That was economic (craziness;-)
and not geographic.

> http://ii.blog.br/2013/01/10/ietf-d-58-como-participar-das-reunioes-do-ietf/,
> at the end. I do not know about the remote participation. The red line
> is participation of Brazilians (a real disaster!)

Yeah. Mind you, the level of Irish participation is also
pretty crappy;-(

> 4.2. The participation of LACNIC is in the last position (2.? %).
> 4.3. Clearly the issues related to Infrastructure Internet are becoming
> more complex. (2.2 above).
> 
> Finally, where should we discuss this? In ericas list or ietf list

I'd say generic issues here, BA specifics on the thread on the
IETF list.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Julião
> PS: We can not forget that I express better in Portuguese. So I can be
> causing, eventually, some problems of understanding, which will require
> further clarification.
> 
> Em 24/05/2013 14:31, Stephen Farrell escreveu:
>>
>> Hi Julião,
>>
>> On 05/24/2013 06:19 PM, Juliao Braga wrote:
>>> Hello SM,
>>>
>>> I'd like to remember that the Regional IETF Meetings not necessarily
>>> must to have the same format as Annual Meetings. The main concern is
>>> that they are (a) motivators for participation in the Annual Meetings,
>>> (b) strengthen and give more flexibility in the progress of WG (not that
>>> the progress is slow, currently), and (c) encourage participation in
>>> Annual Meetings, even remotely, including write drafts, doing reviews as
>>> Melinda said.
>>
>> Isn't that a bit backwards in a sense? The easiest and most
>> important form of participation is remote - contributing to
>> list discussions, reviewing and authoring drafts. Going to
>> meetings is important too, but less so.
>>
>> Sorry to jump on just this point, but I think its important
>> that everyone realise that if you can write good technical
>> emails about protocols then you have all you need to be an
>> as-fully-paid-up-as-anyone IETF participant.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
> 
>