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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, May 28, 2016 2:34 PM -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<[e-mail]> 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 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.

>      Also note that we did chose to conduct the experiment.
> So I think your comparison is quite a ways off the mark.

Indeed.

    john