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

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mon, 23 May 2016 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 7185D12D123 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 10:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DSt97JXDOntD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 10:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E5712D0CC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 10:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7532CC9A; Mon, 23 May 2016 20:18:39 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xEOLVwErXvwc; Mon, 23 May 2016 20:18:39 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5CB2CC64; Mon, 23 May 2016 20:18:39 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7EBDF889-8967-4579-9FC6-A90A745DD45E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <3cfa9c2d-1eaf-dafc-a4e0-a259607eb315@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 19:18:38 +0200
Message-Id: <7810BCA7-8F85-4011-BFDB-ECA1460A7D19@piuha.net>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMGpKFiA78iQDFa5xaM0r0q_3LfLO_JKxaWJ9CBUTeaLg@mail.gmail.com> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es> <CA+9kkMCQBdZOebSo9WwEd14+Bgh64Tpd+8BfF+uzbDRSV-gFxw@mail.gmail.com> <88c09ff2-51d0-d419-1253-ddd8e6049397@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMBi3pR+N3E21j=gNAKNNndX8NvpnwEJcNAYpJGpx6A6mw@mail.gmail.com> <093f7f6f-4d4a-334e-e476-a0b562bd9fd7@cisco.com> <5741EEE6.2040302@gmail.com> <c4aeef86-5c0b-1858-3340-1d1cf4dffcc3@cisco.com> <5741F491.7080908@gmail.com> <be769a9d-92d4-8f6a-12e7-8f68c74acf70@dcrocker.net> <3cfa9c2d-1eaf-dafc-a4e0-a259607eb315@gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, dcrocker@simon.songbird.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hibaU_FracnYDoYV6kF2SS1A4Eo>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 17:18:44 -0000

Re: smaller number of locations.

I think we’ve heard the sentiment from the community, and I think some of the results of that wish are already visible in the upcoming meeting locations that have been announced. That is, out of the 6 out of the 7 known upcoming cities are repeats, Singapore being the exception. Out of the 6 repeats, we’re also often using same hotels*, and 5 out of the 6 we have been to already more than once. The same trend is likely to continue in the meeting locations that haven’t been selected yet.

Also, in general, our policy has already been that we’d like to see a local community. The IETF leadership gets occasional requests for "the IETF to come to a country", and we say that’s great, we’re happy that you are interested, lets talk about ways to increase participation rather than a meeting. Some of us may be able to talk at their events, we can help educate how to participate in the IETF, we can establish connections with ISOC, put some local organisations together, etc.

So I think we all pretty much agree that the sort of blind, out-of-the-blue participation at a meeting site is unlikely to happen and not the goal of our meeting selections.

However, that does not mean there is no value in *some* rotation and change. Balanced against extra effort for research and learning with a new hotel. From a pure contracting perspective it is good to have options, too. But more importantly, continents are big. Our participants already come from many different countries and places, and spreading the travel pain within a continent may be a consideration as well. The closer you are, the more likely you are to be able to attend.

(And we should probably move this discussion to mtgvenue, because this isn’t about IETF #100.)

Jari

*) being intentionally vague here