How to judge what is the fair site for participation

[Vasilenko Eduard <[e-mail]>]

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]