Re: How to judge what is the fair site for participation

[Anupam Agrawal <[e-mail]>]

India never had any IETF meeting. Though some cities have been chosen and
listed, India is yet to host an IETF meeting.

Regards
Anupam

On Mon, 15 Apr, 2024, 12:57 Vasilenko Eduard, <vasilenko.eduard=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I have already proven with simple Excel calculations that
> if the goal is "less disturbance for sleeping hours" (overlap between the
> typical sleeping time of the person with IETF meeting time)
> then all meetings should be in India
> for IETF 111 participant's distribution.
>
> Actually, UTC+5 is Pakistan, and India is 1/2 hour early from optimum.
>
> Of course, it is possible to dispute people's equality principles, "less
> disturbance for sleeping hours" would punish always the same people.
> But anyway, if the optimal for the whole community is India then India
> should be very often on the agenda.
>
> Unfortunately, IETF management is in a different time zone.
>
> When IETF meeting was the last time in India?
>
> PS: By the way, it would help with on-site participants for cost reasons.
> If it is the closest time zone for the majority then the airplane ticket's
> overall charge should be the smallest.
> Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Jay Daley
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2024 12:37
> To: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [119all] Result of the IETF 119 Brisbane post-meeting survey
>
> Hi Chris
>
> > On 12 Apr 2024, at 16:16, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > ** 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.
>
> The meeting policy, BCP 226 RFC 8178, explicitly states the following:
>
> "We meet in different global locations, in order to spread the difficulty
> and cost of travel among active participants, balancing travel time and
> expense across participants based in various regions."
>
> So yes, there will be times when some people find it much easier to attend
> and others find it much harder.  The question is not how to prevent that,
> we can’t, it is whether or not this is being done fairly given the
> geographic distribution of participants.   A 24 year gap between meetings
> in Australia seems fair.
>
> > 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
>
> Will do.  I’m away for a week now and will look at it on my return.
>
> > ** On Barista, Coffee:
> >
> > For the sake of us remote attendees, can you expand on "Yes, sorry."?
> Was it missing, was it bad? :)
>
> It was bad and I had assured people it would be excellent.
>
> Jay
>
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> [e-mail]
>
>