Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 31 May 2016 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 6DEAF12D520 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oBSeU_YIFW_O for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C933012D52C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id b73so68454810lfb.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+5pDQCdrheT0IlW8TFPJH8WyONfM2pILsI7cUNci7eg=; b=VPJHGjfv1dumDkYjZ1e75u1b3lSZBxd4PAGew6JkwxvOK5xUAvWYjitAnChf78P/jG Q/lTPf4APcQn5MKe6fzc1maZUYhEWw9QPVUn7AAnv3EoiTuJLY0s1nxfyNY0SHuHyTh5 AO5kusZmOVs2rJFWbzwjAoMSFJsBgpGnSVkCSnjfCspoaKfdx3LRIA2HvKhY0QYvu3Rk xMvJ6aLzVIQBYRdNsCpY0MpykaO5X0+EpfnAU/D2H3fR1tASTP6Y7MmaokGwJhV4M/5p DpQFtgKnFuoGRGj4DQigbRGQr+DzCok5Ys2vQ2RZXdYqG3z7d0tKkdMO2/roFdVSyLy+ iQVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+5pDQCdrheT0IlW8TFPJH8WyONfM2pILsI7cUNci7eg=; b=JSv5ke8DkBkoeHFuiDNX+N+1/ghjxJw0hTD7NSOO/X5gypOTUJh0Krpu9XZuSNnu3v k7g12jrQngv66oyn7qTLkdI/2kevD1ebm9/CxxYLWoW4UFNJgXQmxXbDUffgC8+BximM R5DBv7wnH+8dKbWwCZCJm60gsKajuqZMjXvcBKgae8QkJccsoxfwHfkwJ63zQGasj/1W 0GrBrTxKG4KIQ2PIET5sU3TdM32udoB38FQ2BVYAiIIwQO+OpK+ER+4LI+0z1qC4xrtf NhGzQhB0t2aA6KKe9ypvWlUrLbMJhruSlzDdXeecKq+IQa1BoO6G+ZKIRZjFSNjxJ8Xa KI5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJXA6WOSIWMz+ltK2gHsbZ4LCsZ/TJSgR6DhT5f79iDafK4NzWWIt0pZFJ53OuWTAeb/rI3zaUnvlMdjg==
X-Received: by 10.25.91.140 with SMTP id p134mr9141869lfb.181.1464702900684; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.153.135 with HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B052666C0FA@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr2mGNPhUCzWyfAo_DYL3LhjkqRB13zXuj8wMqFQJfE4GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3DnzzxeRE8QbkDHS9HCP2Lu8pTbR6o9_ZL21RNNqa2sg@mail.gmail.com> <5749E35E.9030201@si6networks.com> <67e1079c-0937-d09a-79a5-a6c0487a3285@joelhalpern.com> <D30A41979C540803EB84F486@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B052666C0FA@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:54:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=Prb=L4hfaMaHXuFMqh_nA=qWWOVU-OY3vQ1sACH07=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11400b4218dd46053423b897
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3nJWUpND91gTnKOligrKXb1Lsj0>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <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: Tue, 31 May 2016 13:55:09 -0000

It's worth mentioning, perhaps, that the fact that the a lot of the same
people get to go to IETF every time can be seen either as a bug or a
feature.   It's a feature in the sense that if those people do work, work
gets done.   It's a bug in the sense that it's likely that by optimizing
for that, we are excluding people who would benefit from coming to IETF
when it is in their region, but can't manage it when it is not.

Several comments in this thread have taken it as a given that making sure
the same people always get to go is a priority.   In fact, if those people
felt a bit more disenfranchised they might be more eager to make sure that
the remote attendance experience was better than it currently is.

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:40 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <MHammer@ag.com>;
wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
> > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 7:32 PM
> > To: Joel M. Halpern; Fernando Gont
> > Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org; Ietf@Ietf. Org
> > Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF
> > 100
> >
> >
> >
> > --On Saturday, May 28, 2016 2:34 PM -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
> > <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; wrote:
> >
> > > Fernando,
> > >      Your response assumes that it is proven that moving to
> > > less-participating locations increases long term participation from
> > > those locales.  There are also indications from other data that it is
> > > not particularly effective.  Thus, while your view is a reasonable
> > > hypothesis, it will take time and measurements to confirm it.
> >
> > Let me take Joel's observation about the particular BA experiment a bit
> > further.  If, independent of who showed up at that meeting, it isn't
> followed
> > by a significant spike in long-term IETF participation and contributions
> from
> > the region, I think people who say "go there in spite of the fact that
> there
> > hasn't been a lot of participation from the region because participation
> will
> > increase" are going to have a very hard time making that case... for
> either a
> > return to Latin America or for any other region.
> >
>
> I think it is unreasonable to set the bar at MUST have long term
> significant spike in participation from a region after a single meeting
> being held there. Without taking a position on whether meetings should be
> held in particular locations, if the goal is to garner participation from a
> wider geographic constituency then IETF needs to plan and invest to make
> that happen beyond simply holding a single meeting in the region.
>
> > >      I do note that many of our regular participants found BA to be
> > > simply too much (by whatever measures they use) and chose not to come.
> > > That is an observed cost that also must be factored in.
> >
> > That drop in attendance, and overall lower attendance, are significant
> for
> > other reasons, but, at least to me, further raise  the bar for "going to
> this new
> > place will help the IETF"
> > arguments.
> >
>
> That is a different but related discussion.
>
> > >      Also note that we did chose to conduct the experiment.
> > > So I think your comparison is quite a ways off the mark.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> >     john
> >
> >
>
>