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

kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com Fri, 27 May 2016 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.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 9B1DA12D7B2; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 FJLVJgtEsBYU; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (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 9CAF912D79C; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id n63so84638286qkf.0; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NdXKFf4g1ppBwOXOScEo0kD8lQi5beHewpKdu3FA3rM=; b=I0oZlaIxeM4EtZ3SDmmVn1MtniBN2GBU9M3pimcolZInErnPdcHhMsmcCXxQD1msLJ ZpEJcFfvp7SmTuL1UTKN9g3pt6FitzOZFTH9BZFZ/nPAVhUL7ksCMgfvue3lU97ziQM8 Yr5tPA3I9vDHZsTVn+fPu7NoZFei/xd73vSvKyAKfLU60gSgqYrn98mRVqHGI94N1oD8 29R4dazjWJKiZIBUeGYah0B6NpX/3C+kmlzOoGag4+eOiFecN0nI4d4b2v9uXYUM0y0u 0kZrjJQxuG37B6g9i0j0+Ht+8jme/Skpb3Pks7oV+2rYHnlTIoJifR4mc1kfxv+I28Tk 4p2A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NdXKFf4g1ppBwOXOScEo0kD8lQi5beHewpKdu3FA3rM=; b=T0GMKRZkR9azkT5V6RotiQVuT9QD4zC8RlxaNkCuJBHhl4ckjTxf96NaZWtyh6XlJF 0HAZoUesQV+5g/aza68TvvhW6P0M3H3oPzunM3G46ERK17Y+Mob0V6//D+05WjNcVdRS CAzVBhQF2oH/FR4dcJ27LEoouuWJyNgFFgXxMj77MLKhzv16AbkumfuO4fvaBFTeVlJ+ OQ4pzx3Bvnepi4VdDxuEQ4R+gnO/d0tdmS1/ZRdBmGYOLxErPMttq7TZx5MBAEM9QtRN fX8VnhHTn98nsvstDZl3hC7tjxpbERL8tZ8OMCDoXz55OVQHP2ow/BXqvm3zaTxsiH4P 7YfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tI2/n/9bpa/ovpKCGYHr+YH0T3XzpK6xE/quJbOx4mHuPCesQJ3eqeO5BevF8bM/w==
X-Received: by 10.200.41.40 with SMTP id y37mr15268275qty.93.1464371280644; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.6] (209-6-124-204.c3-0.arl-ubr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcn.com. [209.6.124.204]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o6sm5582927qke.0.2016.05.27.10.48.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 27 May 2016 10:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H143)
In-Reply-To: <98B6DD67-33A0-4567-AEC6-B63E1D8EF3A8@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:47:59 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <929B7B93-257B-41C6-8A8A-A7DE5E08039A@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>
To: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fxmd9haxbqRmenoI6TuO0hgNWx0>
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
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 17:48:05 -0000


Sent from my iPhone

> On May 27, 2016, at 12:32 PM, 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.
> 

I'm not sure I agree with this as there has been substantial efforts to increase participation in that region that are ongoing.  To be fair, you'd have to consider the remote hub work as well.  Latin and South American participants collaborate to improve work (language and technical reviews) prior to submitting drafts.  Reviews and participation might not get all the way to an IETF list.

Kathleen 

> (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