Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> (High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF) to Best Current Practice

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Sun, 22 April 2018 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 1EEDA126D85 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 14:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 oIrKJDV__pbL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 14:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBF1E1200F1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 14:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw4 (unknown [10.0.90.85]) by gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B8F1E0B7A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:07:54 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id dZ7q1x0082SSUrH01Z7tze; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:07:54 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=G85sK5s5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=Kd1tUaAdevIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=5IsXbjgYAAAA:8 a=Pf6QpW2kAAAA:8 a=oa6j-BqsC6F_mYqsYVYA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=Yz9wTY_ffGCQnEDHKrcv:22 a=RR2nPHISKLg-FD_FhCoU:22 a=aScfhB3owP0e7kdt9tb6:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=SOeqzKNu6UDsBRhgPHaOr4BkjYeiJEr8IctvgSRr2IA=; b=twYd3P13cOHo34XM/22NVFgL31 sxo3cAVMEKE4Xqhvg+a2OwoPt/GxbDNiUUC13TNMRIrR+7WCNyw2UoXu0D5G4LIDvPOx3G6z3sedp ykeroOa2NKbTwd9ajFHb00cCO;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:49566 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1fAMD8-001u34-0u; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:07:50 -0600
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> (High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF) to Best Current Practice
To: "tom p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <152295916074.25912.932711807710247299.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20180419013457.fq4ruqj7p4lfwxb4@mx4.yitter.info> <CABcZeBPXUqe6ixF+Yx7P6E3Jt3fGjAMUrP368DTedGq-O-T61Q@mail.gmail.com> <0adb9534-75b7-4811-7cf0-4c13385bd434@labn.net> <021b01d3da78$b0b292a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <056ef849-55ef-f9e0-2166-04a506f86c5d@labn.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:07:49 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <021b01d3da78$b0b292a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1fAMD8-001u34-0u
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:49566
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 3
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7h6If8ILJJ8vnrvUPdjWxU9O5hg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 21:07:58 -0000

Tom,

     The data is public.  See 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/country/ for the graph of 
what you're looking for...

Lou


On 4/22/2018 4:29 PM, tom p. wrote:
> Lou
>
> The analysis that would interest me, if it were possible, would be the
> trend for participants from China, suitably adjusted for the location of
> the meeting.   I suspect that, just as it is
> forecast that the world's largest economy will be, in due course, China,
> so some time later, the majority of participants at the IETF will be
> from
> China!  As an occasional attendee, I notice each time how many more
> people appear to be from that country; the London plenary quoted a
> figure of 9%, as I recall, a figure much greater than for any other
> continental European country.
>
> I see the centre of gravity of the IETF shifting.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>
> To: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com>; "Andrew Sullivan"
> <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
> Cc: <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; "IETF discussion list" <ietf@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:02 PM
>
>> On 4/19/2018 8:36 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> First, if you look at historical demographics, over the past 12
> IETFs,
>>> we have 23% Asia, 26% Europe, and 42% NA). Put another way, the last
>>> time we had > 1/3 Asian attendance was IETF 94 in Yokohama, and the
>>> last time we had less than 1/3 NA attendance was IETF 79 in Beijing.
>>> So, a policy that was designed to match per-continent attendance
> would
>>> be more like 2-1-1-*.
>> FWIW looking at the public data [1] for IETF 72-101 the attendee
>> distribution is as follows:
>>
>> Meetings in Asia -- 6686 Total attendees over 6 meetings:
>> Attendees from
>>    36% North America
>>    21% Europe
>>    41% Asia
>>    2% Other
>>
>> Meetings in North America -- 13878 Total attendees over 12 meetings:
>> Attendees from
>>    57% North America
>>    22% Europe
>>    19% Asia
>>    2% Other
>>
>> Meetings in Europe -- 14236 Total attendees over 11 meetings:
>> Attendees from
>>    39% North America
>>    39% Europe
>>    20% Asia
>>    2% Other
>>
>> For All Meetings -- 35843 Total attendees over 29 meetings: (basically
>> the same as ekr's numbers)
>> Attendees from
>>    45% North America
>>    29% Europe
>>    23% Asia
>>    2% Other
>>
>> Lou
>>
>> [1] starting at https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/ (in the
>> above, asia includes numbers reported under "oceana")
>>
>