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

John C Klensin <> Sun, 29 May 2016 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A22E12D58D; Sun, 29 May 2016 16:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D0RJ-AQrT1R6; Sun, 29 May 2016 16:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13ED812D58C; Sun, 29 May 2016 16:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1b7ABF-0002TQ-E5; Sun, 29 May 2016 19:31:37 -0400
Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 19:31:32 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>, Fernando Gont <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> < om> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 23:31:48 -0000

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

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