Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

Ed Juskevicius wrote:
>>Is that hope for future participation by new attendees
>>an acceptable basis for making venue choices that hurt
>>current participation by primary contributors?
>>
>>What is the evidence that we will not gain that new
>>participation without hurting current participation
>>by primary contributors?

It's very hard to get those data. We've tried looking
at how many local first-time attendees from (say) Korea
later became regular attendees but the data are hard to
state in any meaningful way and the time constants are
long (years). There is no objective way to identify 'primary
contributors' other than by assuming the regular attendees are
also contributors.

We certainly know that going a long way from most places,
as we did in Adelaide, impacts attendance significantly -
but my recollection is that Adelaide was a very successful
meeting in terms of WGs making progress.

> 
> Maybe I am an optimist.  I believe the world is a big place, and are
> lots of venues where the IETF has not yet met, which would work for all
> of us, and attract a lot of local participation.

Which, BTW, means income that we badly need.

> 
> My sense of why we are discussing "venue selection criteria" is that we
> wish to encourage people to volunteer to be local hosts for future IETF
> meetings.  To make the best use of the prospective local hosts' time, it
> would help if we could articulate the venues that would be acceptable,
> versus ones that would not 'meet' (pardon the pun) our venue selection
> criteria.

It will also help the IAD significantly in comparing hosting offers.
We also badly need hosts for financial reasons.

     Brian

> Regards,
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc2@dcrocker.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 3:05 PM
> To: Juskevicius, Ed [CAR:1A12:EXCH]
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
> 
> 
> Ed Juskevicius wrote:
> 
>>The "ideal" venue (if there is such a thing) would enable both:
>>- good participation from WG primary contributors AND
>>- lots of local participation
>>
>>The second factor is important, imho, because a fraction of local 
>>newbies are going to be impressed by their IETF experience, and will 
>>want to participate again in the future.  The may well become primary 
>>contributors themselves down the road.
> 
> 
> Is that hope for future participation by new attendees an acceptable 
> basis for making venue choices that hurt current participation by 
> primary contributors? 
> 
> What is the evidence that we will not gain that new participation 
> without hurting current participation by primary contributors?
> 
> d/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf