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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 5/22/2016 2:04 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Allow me to suggest that avoiding disadvantaging people who do not
> actually participate might be somewhat lower priority than avoiding
> disadvantaging those who do.

+10

The model which asserts that choosing meeting venues is a way to recruit 
participants has no objective basis -- and that's after 30 years of 
opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. It frankly serves to work against 
the basic goal of having most work done on mailing lists, by selling a 
cultural view that meetings are primary.

Anyone who wants to participate in the IETF already can.  All they need 
is an Internet connection.  It doesn't even have to be a good one, since 
IETF list mail only consumes extremely low bandwidth and is an 
asynchronous form of use.

F2F meetings permit /added/ efficiency for those who are /already/ 
participating.

Moving the venue is /not/ for permitting attendance by those who 
otherwise can't attend, but (is supposed to be) to share the pain among 
those who do attend.

The outreach goal cited for some venue choices is well-intentioned but 
unfortunately misguided and probably counter-productive to the IETF's 
main work.



On 5/23/2016 7:01 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> I only wish that was true. While we try to go back to venues that
> have worked well, they are often not available on the dates when we
> want to meet.

While that is sometimes the case, of course, it is not the primary 
reason we keep seeking new venues (independent of the occasional social 
outreach experiment.)

The primary reason we vary the cities so much is to try to get sponsors 
and hosts.


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net