RE: How to judge what is the fair site for participation

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Mon, 15 April 2024 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0D3C14F68F; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.884
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.884 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TEajSBjx6Ynf; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9123CC14F68D; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VHzJP0t6gz6K5y1; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:27:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml100003.china.huawei.com (unknown [10.199.174.67]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05A951400E7; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:28:54 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.188.26.250) by mscpeml100003.china.huawei.com (10.199.174.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.28; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:28:53 +0300
Received: from mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.250]) by mscpeml500004.china.huawei.com ([7.188.26.250]) with mapi id 15.02.1258.028; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:28:53 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
CC: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: How to judge what is the fair site for participation
Thread-Topic: How to judge what is the fair site for participation
Thread-Index: AdqPBkPpULNNNxgcT56jF8OkaDf49wAAApow
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 07:28:53 +0000
Message-ID: <57c0d08494244b10928b1896aba05bae@huawei.com>
References: <6052fb2bc9894686b73ca88cbbacb298@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <6052fb2bc9894686b73ca88cbbacb298@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.199.56.41]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_57c0d08494244b10928b1896aba05baehuaweicom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2qyBm9EcW4Ttmf0BSvz7uh9mgQ4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 07:28:59 -0000

[cid:image003.png@01DA8F1F.B60C52B0]

Not sure that this picture would get through. Hence, in a separate message.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vasilenko Eduard
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:27
To: 'Jay Daley' <exec-director@ietf.org>; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: How to judge what is the fair site for participation



I have already proven with simple Excel calculations that if the goal is "less disturbance for sleeping hours" (overlap between the typical sleeping time of the person with IETF meeting time) then all meetings should be in India for IETF 111 participant's distribution.



Actually, UTC+5 is Pakistan, and India is 1/2 hour early from optimum.



Of course, it is possible to dispute people's equality principles, "less disturbance for sleeping hours" would punish always the same people.

But anyway, if the optimal for the whole community is India then India should be very often on the agenda.



Unfortunately, IETF management is in a different time zone.



When IETF meeting was the last time in India?



PS: By the way, it would help with on-site participants for cost reasons.

If it is the closest time zone for the majority then the airplane ticket's overall charge should be the smallest.

Eduard

-----Original Message-----

From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Jay Daley

Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 12:37

To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org<mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>

Cc: ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org>

Subject: Re: [119all] Result of the IETF 119 Brisbane post-meeting survey



Hi Chris



> On 12 Apr 2024, at 16:16, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org<mailto:chopps@chopps.org>> wrote:



> ** On remote attendance:

>

> Attendance in Brisbane Australia was down to 66% that of Prague and forced remote attendance (would have attended but couldn't fund) increased to 75% from 60%.

>

> I think these results should definitely be made (more?) obvious so the community can make sure that it agrees with the IETF's choices for locations for meetings -- that we are enabling people to attend in person vs. placing barriers to the same.



The meeting policy, BCP 226 RFC 8178, explicitly states the following:



"We meet in different global locations, in order to spread the difficulty and cost of travel among active participants, balancing travel time and expense across participants based in various regions."



So yes, there will be times when some people find it much easier to attend and others find it much harder.  The question is not how to prevent that, we can’t, it is whether or not this is being done fairly given the geographic distribution of participants.   A 24 year gap between meetings in Australia seems fair.



> Also could you provide what percentage of the total registered attendees for the past few meetings was remote? That would be useful too.

>

> Total registrations:

>   117 San Francisco: 1579

>   118 Prague: 1806

>   119 Brisbane: 1206



Will do.  I’m away for a week now and will look at it on my return.



> ** On Barista, Coffee:

>

> For the sake of us remote attendees, can you expand on "Yes, sorry."?

> Was it missing, was it bad? :)



It was bad and I had assured people it would be excellent.



Jay





--

Jay Daley

IETF Executive Director

exec-director@ietf.org<mailto:exec-director@ietf.org>