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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 31 May 2016 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 57BE212D77B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 07:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vQmdJMyo6xXl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 07:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9CDF12D535 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 07:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 46529 invoked from network); 31 May 2016 14:26:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 31 May 2016 14:26:44 -0000
Date: 31 May 2016 14:26:22 -0000
Message-ID: <20160531142622.2092.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
In-Reply-To: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B052666C0FA@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NTMQH9g3WkDInE2u-EVkkMFngmA>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:26:47 -0000

>I think it is unreasonable to set the bar at MUST have long term significant spike in participation from a region after
>a single meeting being held there. Without taking a position on whether meetings should be held in particular
>locations, if the goal is to garner participation from a wider geographic constituency then IETF needs to plan and
>invest to make that happen beyond simply holding a single meeting in the region.

Yes, of course.  There's lots of ways to recruit people and it's not
at all evident that moving the meetings is an effective use of either
our time or our money.  The BA meeting came off better than I
expected, and like everyone else I certainly hope that the people from
South America who came continue to do work writing and reviewing
drafts, but the jury is still out.

R's,
John