Re: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 4/20/16 5:07 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 4/20/16 08:26, thomas nadeau wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2016, at 6:48 AM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> If we don't see such a cohort, we need to dig deeper.
>> Or perhaps wonder why we should concern ourselves with this at all?
> Because it's their Internet, too.

I'm not sure that's actually responsive.  The internet "belongs
to" uncountable numbers of people who will never, ever participate
in making protocol standards.

If people are not participating in mailing lists, reviewing
documents, and so on, it's not at all clear to me why meeting
in their corner of the world is going to change anything.
Historically it does not seem to have been very effective.
I do think that what Nalini is doing (putting together
document review teams/study groups for new participants)
seems likely to be more effective than changing meeting
venues, and I'm very curious to see how that works out.

Personally, I'm completely unfunded and geographically
remote but still chair a working group, belong to directorates,
author drafts, and so on.  For me, the expectation that we
will attend meetings in person every single time is a
much bigger barrier to participation than having the meetings
someplace inconvenient (i.e. having to travel at all is far
more onerous than having to spend two days in transit if I do
travel), and I'd really like to see us let go of expectations
that IETF participation means going to meetings (particularly
since it's not how we're *supposed* to work, according to
our own process documents).

I expect that this discussion, coupled with the repeat-ad-
infinitum discussion of what's required of IETF leadership
positions makes it how clear just how deeply into the pockets
of the big network gizmo manufacturers the IETF really is.

Melinda