Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Margaret Cullen <> Fri, 27 May 2016 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A9812D715; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Y9mJeIkgDPZ; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C38F12D6D1; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c127so110776489ywb.1; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=RHcoB77X/DAkLF29/gHL+aSxcPEHHA3/cTOIPHSakls=; b=uyr7zhMV1QOi/K0o5lzeH9w5SA1WMr9M1Hjo1iwQkC99Thdkqr6TREGPTjl1rMsqWk pfd97UgV8DCthS5Ir54COpkf2ZvSDGcXcgdv/+iWGKOu8yd8C1KfjTUam0QXpGUJfF7l /dLhIAzKVCSLna0Ncnl6FvTOiyw/Rb8N8GbxAZP5Pt+Ty6QpFaFG+DNc8Ns6087tPwsE zPtzwZaWGNjELubQKZgkkHNOUgcKVfQfYspPY7ppxW9PE7Zxh9H6HwF9Wk7JE9yz7hbs rWiYjAU4h/DlfXdBAa1xLqHGXumMrgV3BKOZkEMEefXzAGwpxx72rbS1ZfQB0q8eeJJj yZ5A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=RHcoB77X/DAkLF29/gHL+aSxcPEHHA3/cTOIPHSakls=; b=DUUo1q/Uka6uWcIsZW7rR3SXSOeM4JfFpHgU8L//Gdc1eo4gWN9asM4oWclvUcGUj0 KGRA29w2lFCh5Mz49fJIpnBpkUocrl2AFr48Yt1ZGwuzL8LqF8MFnLT72J1LtJXls6QF Rf/k/+pP+9/Omf/V1QuAeJNOlO7wnvm7lpINpNR5tPdNSzmd9xBwEP1Ei2cQssVExwz8 30I/lvzkH0cYl+fM46AsR9dnT038/xBYysT0PkPYUTVOQE6m25Ok6cWXOdS6aNBKuios gcq7+KBThabMk3B4NvYilsQ4CNuuKqFUm4Auc8aMJM1YzCOzHWeeJp0TRod1tKATqmnL J/vg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIcgSDcQwGgcZDJYosvIiLgcuSsTS7M6MQqkPEA66lI1TypojOiU86eNEMrws6Y9A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id d84mr8934703ybb.49.1464366767454; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from margarets-air-3.home ( []) by with ESMTPSA id u130sm5777293ywa.17.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 27 May 2016 09:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Margaret Cullen <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Margaret Cullen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:32:46 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Donald Eastlake <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>, "Fred Baker \(fred\)" <>, Lorenzo Colitti <>
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: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:32:49 -0000

> On May 27, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Donald Eastlake <> wrote:
> The policy was very simply to hold meetings to roughly equalize the
> travel burden on the people who were actually attending the meetings.
> It had nothing to do with diversity. Asia was added to the rotation,
> first as one out of 5 (2-2-1) and then as one out of 3 (1-1-1) after
> Asia attendance actually increased, NOT due to any sort of diversity
> policy or marketing effort. I think that was a good policy, one
> oriented to getting work done. Buenos Aires was a stark exception to
> this policy.

This matches my understanding as well.  We started going to Asia because it wasn’t fair that the Asian participants (who were _already actively participating_) were shouldering a larger travel burden than attendees from North America and Europe.

Before we regularly start traveling to other regions of the world on a regular basis as a means of increasing the geographical diversity of our attendees, i would like to see two things happen:

(1) I would like us to use Buenos Aires as an experiment and actually track how many of the local first-time attendees continue to be active participants (write to mailing lists, author drafts, attend other meetings in person or remotely) over the next 6-to-12 months, so that we can see if traveling to a new region of the world actually works to recruit more participants from that area.

(2) Discuss, within the IETF, whether the costs of doing this (financial and logistical) are worth the benefits, AFTER we know what those benefits are from completing step 1.