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

Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com> Fri, 27 May 2016 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <wmills_92105@yahoo.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 E657A12D15B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.com
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 te8JEnXw_qMp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm22-vm1.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm22-vm1.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.212.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAD8F12D121 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1464367784; bh=s1Qh+nIwJ2UJLeH1Mkw33QNN/MmbKttImBNhAkqAZZ4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=cBAFRkmogEJjjlPiQxzS4w1Yy20KaCuMcrXxVMSLupl+rAJTmlWnen8eYEVOpIEwis6Vf05igLVOQ2DlhzKGd7MlgRgJwWRbxPM/1yvMIAClnxUXo9X6qHuijJrWnwJ7vhnLbDUuKyB2h1d/NxXmjIUrLys9ZiXZlSR+YgukFqWdVARXZKa9IBYbg5rXX48+U/OJGG4Kw4qFYoMVGDaX/3qWdhrS8fypTxLIu1CqGBQyVrnkXoe9laEGO9u1AcKA8v7JdGM8dDNZrRbvdpNCegLOFz6X7u3x17wG1JbRSHwKZYxSXSySVoEFhpM7egV9aNzw6Zqt8K6EWw0YYdzTSg==
Received: from [98.139.215.140] by nm22.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 May 2016 16:49:44 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.238] by tm11.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 May 2016 16:49:44 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1047.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 May 2016 16:49:44 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 826200.1232.bm@omp1047.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: aghs2j0VM1lzWwXdLWPtsOpMFV9oVgPcb2jFbuw7emIrrHN_HCdZf6B7bMlUfmj SOBGw_0y8.sP_JPgoCWZ6LwgzF72_fTzPWGwRw78ogHYC5NA3f3nOh9goAXLL4bEU_5s345TmbYq 1jKax7Tq1riPL48pUrGWbQTs9nvJYJ8SyzhsL_d.Vf8xBJl1MMAC7qkKbj7KDRGUKI3Zt353gtsA _JLga3DK6IgTmMUldpVlPBAl8MjQk69J4w2Wv01Fq5PttPCuR6eqgvW7FB8iipRrWvvd2KiO6Ux4 QZANGCEFzu0FyJDbLSR75Rwy47aKyxtiKgz6pJF2Cg.jNz_d1GzaTU60tZjXJBDOc44eX_OV4mVR mPKO9gJT_PDMRoubeHSmp3CCaRTNwmh.TYfTdBS6G1iedtv1Ne3NWLZuiiCjVxWAy5YipQhy1E1F nJcmBVKdfiQAK658gLFxyPaSH.Gn03e7EldE8XjPyZ4f7nRe2BhCD8GL_paV57A.VMGGkx_ye6BJ wspoOM2m3yCYE7LoR0IQHdnRm__LWojMM_aCY7NC2m2L0PrYXX6k-
Received: from jws10680.mail.bf1.yahoo.com by sendmailws121.mail.bf1.yahoo.com; Fri, 27 May 2016 16:49:44 +0000; 1464367784.373
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:49:44 +0000 (UTC)
From: Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com>
To: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1579105759.462788.1464367784063.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <98B6DD67-33A0-4567-AEC6-B63E1D8EF3A8@gmail.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.com> <98B6DD67-33A0-4567-AEC6-B63E1D8EF3A8@gmail.com>
Subject: Success metrics Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_462787_1961170137.1464367784060"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XiTnL7QW2sc4MkgnMDvnegfYLf8>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "Fred Baker \(fred\)" <fred@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Bill Mills <wmills_92105@yahoo.com>
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: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:49:48 -0000

I don't think that this:

(1) I would like us to use Buenos Aires as an experiment and actually track how many of the local first-time attendees continue to be active participants (write to mailing lists, author drafts, attend other meetings in person or remotely) over the next 6-to-12 months, so that we can see if traveling to a new region of the world actually works to recruit more participants from that area.


is the only success metric, or perhaps even the most important one.  Local attendance also promotes better understanding of the process even if those attendees never participate in a standard.  
A more interesting metric to me would be a measure of attendance of active IETF participants based on distance from the venue, perhaps the percentage of locally active members who attend in person.

 

    On Friday, May 27, 2016 9:33 AM, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com> wrote:
 

 
> On May 27, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The policy was very simply to hold meetings to roughly equalize the
> travel burden on the people who were actually attending the meetings.
> It had nothing to do with diversity. Asia was added to the rotation,
> first as one out of 5 (2-2-1) and then as one out of 3 (1-1-1) after
> Asia attendance actually increased, NOT due to any sort of diversity
> policy or marketing effort. I think that was a good policy, one
> oriented to getting work done. Buenos Aires was a stark exception to
> this policy.

This matches my understanding as well.  We started going to Asia because it wasn’t fair that the Asian participants (who were _already actively participating_) were shouldering a larger travel burden than attendees from North America and Europe.

Before we regularly start traveling to other regions of the world on a regular basis as a means of increasing the geographical diversity of our attendees, i would like to see two things happen:

(1) I would like us to use Buenos Aires as an experiment and actually track how many of the local first-time attendees continue to be active participants (write to mailing lists, author drafts, attend other meetings in person or remotely) over the next 6-to-12 months, so that we can see if traveling to a new region of the world actually works to recruit more participants from that area.

(2) Discuss, within the IETF, whether the costs of doing this (financial and logistical) are worth the benefits, AFTER we know what those benefits are from completing step 1.

Margaret





_______________________________________________
Recentattendees mailing list
Recentattendees@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees