Re: [119all] Result of the IETF 119 Brisbane post-meeting survey

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 14, 2024, at 07:13, Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 14 Apr 2024, at 11:00, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 14, 2024, at 05:37, Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Chris
>>> 
>>>> On 12 Apr 2024, at 16:16, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> ** On remote attendance:
>>>> 
>>>> Attendance in Brisbane Australia was down to 66% that of Prague and forced remote attendance (would have attended but couldn't fund) increased to 75% from 60%.
>>>> 
>>>> I think these results should definitely be made (more?) obvious so the community can make sure that it agrees with the IETF's choices for locations for meetings -- that we are enabling people to attend in person vs. placing barriers to the same.
>>> 
>>> The meeting policy, BCP 226 RFC 8178, explicitly states the following:
>>> 
>>> "We meet in different global locations, in order to spread the difficulty and cost of travel among active participants, balancing travel time and expense across participants based in various regions."
>>> 
>>> So yes, there will be times when some people find it much easier to attend and others find it much harder.  The question is not how to prevent that, we can’t, it is whether or not this is being done fairly given the geographic distribution of participants.   A 24 year gap between meetings in Australia seems fair.
>> 
>> I'm not saying it won't seem fair; however, not showing the data encourages biased speculation. I think we should show this data after every meeting, not just this last one; it will also show sites that are particularly effective.
> 
> I agree that this is a good measure of "pain" and worth plotting over time but "particularly effective" - how so?  Without knowing for sure, it seems to me that the effectiveness of a meeting is much more complex than this and I’m not sure anyone understands it well enough to identify all the dimensions to measure. 

The context here is on-site participation vs forced/unwanted remote participation, and so "particularly effective" was meant in that context not in some broader one. To be explicit "particularly effective at enabling on-site participation (and not hindering it)".

Thanks,
Chris.

> 
> The data you highlight might be a proxy for effectiveness but I doubt it.  One key indicator  in the survey that may possibly serve as a proxy for effectiveness to a limited degree, is the overall satisfaction score and that is clearly highlighted.  
> 
> Jay
> 
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> [e-mail]