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

Stewart Bryant <> Mon, 23 May 2016 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC99C12D1AD for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0CH3qyKmxHOy for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB75B12D99C for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n129so86241212wmn.1 for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/iFmlwQVe4PXqFqMAzSbWEUBUBEqjlKi3tUShoaxDXg=; b=jJmqlyCrxTXSNlGuqo3n8cExYFGGbUxzg+5cLlVUoa2nUY6b59fvtIB+FeKPaA2Jcp 4nuDdgj9VvXxOL8NA3uDs7Rd7jSgpiQWIPmTwtH3KU5AUm93oJWXpq3hQ2rlXXtLqMBT Zkvk/vOx2SdRR0yi55dJKZ8ny2vvRxy3bevi/18iLqMHGHpZrUkbBeoYA7d1omF/g2Lp guUSr8+UsY10GxrmKgaX4uY0ZXIkJAbwXfsgleip3sFVVgNmVxHNGmkZucU+nygw+o/E B2tQTZsK91foVp81GEWHigNSdrQhpBL08FV7v1IoONiTl8h5LvuMXYXRjg6n796x/+WN Yf2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/iFmlwQVe4PXqFqMAzSbWEUBUBEqjlKi3tUShoaxDXg=; b=O32NZmoC0q5Ff3O7okX1bziuv/qFZH/15LiYtbfouimJz92WRf47XmLpdW7kqp7Ekt dVFcM5kcHf1QAWEhTuZZo/hWYCCYCuUVav//jjpbBSf3qb0Q2mH0s6rinpfdW5Lo5ZBu mDq9CjJwM8NK9J2SifhFLtUjk1Ds2FJFBkXOI4Dvv8ogA/xkhB+7VCge17jpzBGeqAUh InUjaTFV4r/cTbQ+Flc3Dxr/1dbSqGsU+y59Snd/NnxIG0HkXFzOQwrWyFa/lygZePla +QRC2qfGJDsvIw2uQ/yi0sjUjjankZRJISPe8wQ6dMHAZW6eVjri3/Q8p6ZV92aKGc7g zE8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW+FQUIbHD3utBCbEQbw8sXnqaQvUYCZorXl6Jp3l/MlDu69uwuBKhCdH+Vv7cxlQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e71mr17237459wmf.38.1464018663414; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id i1sm36006552wjm.12.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 23 May 2016 08:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To:, Melinda Shore <>, Eliot Lear <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stewart Bryant <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 16:51:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:51:06 -0000

My gut feeling is that Dave is probably correct in his assertion that 
our peripatetic approach to outreach produces little of value, and is 
probably counter-productive to our key activity of designing a better 
Internet. I wonder if we have hard evidence on this one way or the 
other? If the IETF has that evidence, it would be really useful if that 
were  tabled to inform this debate.

If there is no hard evidence that our peripatetic approach has has a 
significant positive benefit, then choosing a small pool of locations 
that are accessible (in all senses of the word) to those that are 
already active would seem to service the mission of the IETF best.

- Stewart

On 23/05/2016 14:13, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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/