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

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Fri, 12 April 2024 15:49 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 49B1CC14F710; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.885
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 ZOBVjSeNftaO; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAC9BC14F70A; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ja.int.chopps.org.chopps.org (172-222-091-149.res.spectrum.com [172.222.91.149]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 567127D06F; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:49:18 +0000 (UTC)
References: <DC6C12FF-601C-4180-9FD1-4A1589531113@ietf.org>
User-agent: mu4e 1.8.14; emacs 28.2
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: IETF Executive Director <exec-director@ietf.org>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [119all] Result of the IETF 119 Brisbane post-meeting survey
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:16:25 -0400
In-reply-to: <DC6C12FF-601C-4180-9FD1-4A1589531113@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <m2y19iinsy.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GNqvTum-wMIU1xZPZ_X_COx22j0>
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: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:49:21 -0000

[move CC to ietf@]

IETF Executive Director <exec-director@ietf.org> writes:

> The results of the IETF 119 Brisbane post-meeting survey are now available:
>
> 	https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-119-post-meeting-survey/
>
> Please feel to contact me directly if you have any questions.


** 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.

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


** On Barista, Coffee:

For the sake of us remote attendees, can you expand on "Yes, sorry."? Was it missing, was it bad? :)

Thanks,
Chris.