Re: [119all] Result of the IETF 119 Brisbane post-meeting survey

Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> Sun, 14 April 2024 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@staff.ietf.org>
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 1CFF6C14F61C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Apr 2024 04:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=staff-ietf-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10bom-JBLksT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Apr 2024 04:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E044C14F618 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Apr 2024 04:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-34782776b19so440033f8f.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Apr 2024 04:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=staff-ietf-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1713093229; x=1713698029; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jaXSCJOcVnH9cQ4c4e3FUFvjyV6DPsSAtfcboMzQFHU=; b=rJ6DE5k3RZ5+9s5RiDYP9+kC0l3fMoCFUZvDzVS7Uf99znVpWBR7V2xNeFrA7WfqS+ /C5HRk1WDfKgfTk0sUo74uNezV9zm86DXAAEislhyTXSd28jDOKut77v7afuIvBsF43j /UUq4kDkZHtEdhyA0WI7HQlFuXp6uzZmTOM+eS+Ip67yH2dH94rUBmKWTBRaV/n4ubAo WEA+DOR5IAsDpkHVNILJ1TkgMbcesliIdEz7/l5ObCvPDjeqhBz7PYYtF2AN5ESPNtP3 hEmjj2jpuz2C9okf0UrPi4yqdAaeqCJza37zTAZ1q2ziJrECfkt6CSZ8STRhTt2r7haA D+Aw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713093229; x=1713698029; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jaXSCJOcVnH9cQ4c4e3FUFvjyV6DPsSAtfcboMzQFHU=; b=G+/HiPJRgPcEjtnpVxZNTeaLJvnG3DIq/+LycTOwaoaGFvRBSIzpdybHLXH39zVWhU Kb6yZT3la1P2LQ1cIJLW5mle7qKwXSdQpn9vGEQqg1SNeBX6tMbFNM/fYEzMJkKF5gGr jfW4mRiijmrHTvWnKXAO6JFFK8KtcLebaLjPJv3x+rqLK52ULpWSsEhbGSx6BUfVtkA8 ogToeZ0lQd86g0FiLGTeX0ymn8zSRdzQ5U88gaD6E3TZ/pbw5zFr+GqKZvUfBDS4nLgg bqO2uX8OOXzSZUpiq6o5l/YE2Ekpb3rfdUsLCFFf2lrLEAWiQNqQKy2qrNfNQi9OF8Il 2CHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyrBGjcIY/E0wf9s2xb0qBKToXSwbYOKaiGQGGa1U7Xt4Vxsmw8 WNTWB4pXVUSLyfYPCcByfzxkq7xnW72CgXURXAbiTp3iTNUUp0dm//dxZKhSSHpdMrbT3zuHkXq 7uzU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGKX7ZMI94L1YLoeoQsDcbJ/S9DR+1p8rv4ADSf3Xey0fcw/EOdE712SE/WZGigAXBZ2r153w==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5f92:0:b0:346:b95f:278a with SMTP id dr18-20020a5d5f92000000b00346b95f278amr4903055wrb.55.1713093228908; Sun, 14 Apr 2024 04:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (host-92-27-125-209.static.as13285.net. [92.27.125.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a14-20020adffb8e000000b00347363b77dasm4612527wrr.33.2024.04.14.04.13.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 14 Apr 2024 04:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <1E1EF642-93B7-4245-B702-839B850AB369@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3020991E-6969-4C07-B741-BAE8B496287C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
Subject: Re: [119all] Result of the IETF 119 Brisbane post-meeting survey
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:13:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: <27F155AC-9B10-4FAD-ABE6-ACD79769B571@chopps.org>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
References: <DC6C12FF-601C-4180-9FD1-4A1589531113@ietf.org> <m2y19iinsy.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org> <B6F57D48-8E9E-409A-BD26-3706F102188B@ietf.org> <27F155AC-9B10-4FAD-ABE6-ACD79769B571@chopps.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cFXXtYZUgX_eRJcS5gK-88xyjo4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <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: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 11:13:52 -0000


> On 14 Apr 2024, at 11:00, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 05:37, Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Chris
>> 
>>> On 12 Apr 2024, at 16:16, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> 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.
> 
> I'm not saying it won't seem fair; however, not showing the data encourages biased speculation. I think we should show this data after every meeting, not just this last one; it will also show sites that are particularly effective.

I agree that this is a good measure of "pain" and worth plotting over time but "particularly effective" - how so?  Without knowing for sure, it seems to me that the effectiveness of a meeting is much more complex than this and I’m not sure anyone understands it well enough to identify all the dimensions to measure. 

The data you highlight might be a proxy for effectiveness but I doubt it.  One key indicator  in the survey that may possibly serve as a proxy for effectiveness to a limited degree, is the overall satisfaction score and that is clearly highlighted.  

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
exec-director@ietf.org