Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Thu, 20 October 2005 15:02 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESbvm-0007j6-0R; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:02:10 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESbvj-0007ij-O5 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:02:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19324 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:01:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mtagate2.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.135]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESc7a-00041M-3X for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:14:24 -0400
Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate2.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j9KF1icO061356 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:01:44 GMT
Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.213]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j9KF1g2V226210 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:01:42 +0100
Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9KF1gRd004198 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:01:42 +0100
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9KF1f8t004175; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:01:41 +0100
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-217-168.de.ibm.com [9.146.217.168]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA54420; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:01:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4357B152.4070903@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:01:38 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: erosen@cisco.com
References: <200510201300.j9KD0u23009571@rtp-core-1.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <200510201300.j9KD0u23009571@rtp-core-1.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 082a9cbf4d599f360ac7f815372a6a15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Eric Rosen wrote:
>>There is no objective way to identify 'primary contributors' other than by
>>assuming the regular attendees are also contributors. 
> 
> 
> This is simply  silly.  It's not much of  a secret, in any WG,  who does the
> work and who comes to listen. 

I didn't say it's a secret. But it's subjective. And listening is a useful
activity if it carries information back to future implementers.

> 
> 
>>We've  tried looking  at how  many local  first-time attendees  from (say)
>>Korea later became regular attendees but the data are hard to state in any
>>meaningful way and the time constants are long (years). 
> 
> 
> This  is a  somewhat round-about  way of  saying that  you have  no  data to
> support your position. 

I don't have a position. We're discussing what our criteria should be.
I'm telling you that the data are hard to interpret.

> 
> 
>>We certainly know that going a long way from most places,
>>as we did in Adelaide, impacts attendance significantly -
>>but my recollection is that Adelaide was a very successful
>>meeting in terms of WGs making progress. 
> 
> 
> Obviously recollections differ. 

Well, I re-read my trip report from Adelaide to check my
recollection.

> 
> By  scattering meetings all  over the  world, with  no consideration  of the
> average travel time,  you encourage the creation of  a class of professional
> standards-meeting-attenders, which is just the opposite of what is wanted.

By holding most of its meetings in Geneva, ITU-T appears to do the same.

> 
> 
>>income [from local participants] that we badly need. 
> 
> 
> Well, this is  the first I've heard  that we want to maximize  the number of
> people who come  to listen rather than to work.   Everything I've ever heard
> in the past  suggested the opposite.  If we now want  to maximize the number
> of passive attendees, I'm sure we can find a way to do it without scattering
> the meetings all around the world. 

The objective is surely to keep the IETF fresh with new active
participants joining from wherever in the world Internet technology is
being developed or deployed. But we do need the money too, and that
means welcoming listeners in practice.

    Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf