Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

John C Klensin <> Sun, 22 May 2016 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF4212D1EC for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6oWL7V7L66ZU for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BF2312D1E5 for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1b4Y67-000Pt1-M5; Sun, 22 May 2016 14:27:31 -0400
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 14:27:26 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Melinda Shore <>, Eliot Lear <>,
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> < om> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 18:27:37 -0000

--On Sunday, May 22, 2016 10:04 -0800 Melinda Shore
<> wrote:

> On 5/22/16 10:02 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Sorry- but there is no doubt that f2f meetings are high
>> bandwidth compared to any electronic form of communication.
>> And I'm saying that if we're going to have them we have a
>> choice of who we disadvantage, for surely we will
>> disadvantage someone.  This discussion is about how that
>> choice is made.

> Allow me to suggest that avoiding disadvantaging people who do
> not actually participate might be somewhat lower priority than
> avoiding disadvantaging those who do.

Hi.  FWIW, I'm in complete agreement with Melinda on this, but
let me suggest that there can sensibly be three categories
rather than a dichotomy:

(1) Those who are actively participating, involving both mailing
list and at least occasional or historical f2f activity.

(2) Those who are not attending f2f but who have shown clear
participation and contributions on mailing lists (and, if there
is any "etc.", etc.).

(3) Those whom the IETF hopes to recruit into active
participation, including those who live in places where we don't
meet very often but who haven't discovered mailing list
participation, those who have or might attend a meeting if it is
held near to them, and those brought in on one-time "gee, look
at the IETF" activities by ISOC or others.   If any of those
people follow up their visits by active participation in
technical work, they become part of the second category.

I suggest that it is entirely reasonable to consider the needs,
locations, economics, etc., of the second group on a par with
the first but that we get ourselves into trouble if we make
decisions that put either of the first two groups at a
disadvantage to benefit the third group.  For that third group,
future active involvement is, at best, highly speculative at

With no disrespect to anyone, if the perspective above is worth
anything, statistics about how many people showed up in Buenos
Aires (or Honolulu, or...) who had not attended IETF before are
almost useless.  Statistics showing how many of those groups are
now actively participating in one or more WG are, by contrast,
of significant interest, especially wrt meeting planning based
on principles like "go where the participants are" or "average
out travel costs".