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

"MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com> Tue, 31 May 2016 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <MHammer@ag.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 1386912D1DC; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:40:59 -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 qxvrz7Y5PaDW; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from agwhqht.amgreetings.com (agwhqht.amgreetings.com [207.58.192.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBD6E12D515; Tue, 31 May 2016 06:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com ([fe80::f5de:4c30:bc26:d70a]) by USCLES532.agna.amgreetings.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Tue, 31 May 2016 09:40:54 -0400
From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Subject: RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Thread-Index: AQHRttH8UrBM/maGFUe4CZVoUTOlHZ/LqQwAgAAFxYCAAAsWAIAAGKcAgABbZACAAEetAIABZ4idgAEVzQCAAAGtAIAB5UAAgAI6XIA=
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 13:40:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B052666C0FA@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr2mGNPhUCzWyfAo_DYL3LhjkqRB13zXuj8wMqFQJfE4GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEG3zt1ykuVTbi4_3nAAeCUiikXKR5HLj+8KG8U7yxo=NA@mail.gmail.c om> <CAKD1Yr3DnzzxeRE8QbkDHS9HCP2Lu8pTbR6o9_ZL21RNNqa2sg@mail.gmail.com> <5749E35E.9030201@si6networks.com> <67e1079c-0937-d09a-79a5-a6c0487a3285@joelhalpern.com> <D30A41979C540803EB84F486@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <D30A41979C540803EB84F486@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.144.15.225]
x-kse-attachmentfiltering-interceptor-info: protection disabled
x-kse-serverinfo: USCLES532.agna.amgreetings.com, 9
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean, bases: 5/31/2016 11:34:00 AM
x-kse-dlp-scaninfo: Skipped
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/W2GdSN_kFhayO6XnLhZ-3jERIQI>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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 13:40:59 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 7:32 PM
> To: Joel M. Halpern; Fernando Gont
> Cc: recentattendees@ietf.org; Ietf@Ietf. Org
> Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF
> 100
> 
> 
> 
> --On Saturday, May 28, 2016 2:34 PM -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
> <jmh@joelhalpern.com>; 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 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.

> >      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"
> arguments.
> 

That is a different but related discussion.

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