Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

> There is no objective way to identify 'primary contributors' other than by
> assuming the regular attendees are also contributors. 

This is simply  silly.  It's not much of  a secret, in any WG,  who does the
work and who comes to listen. 

> 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). 

This  is a  somewhat round-about  way of  saying that  you have  no  data to
support your position. 

> 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. 

Obviously recollections differ. 

By  scattering meetings all  over the  world, with  no consideration  of the
average travel time,  you encourage the creation of  a class of professional
standards-meeting-attenders, which is just the opposite of what is wanted.

> income [from local participants] that we badly need. 

Well, this is  the first I've heard  that we want to maximize  the number of
people who come  to listen rather than to work.   Everything I've ever heard
in the past  suggested the opposite.  If we now want  to maximize the number
of passive attendees, I'm sure we can find a way to do it without scattering
the meetings all around the world. 

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