Re: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration

thomas nadeau <> Wed, 20 April 2016 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23D612E5A1 for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SGlH5LgsIuap for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8676112E52B for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1461158782; bh=Zi23TLr+tFi2OFIHap0zY/BR7mb4L682apjMyzLCscc=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=ySNSo5Www0km0EclIHb1Xz95p3s0K097MZhiFjSrL8Hh/CREnABqIL02W5M6GA2n8 4zuGklP0jm4lcbbEFZvtijCY8bQQrW8gP1MKo69R2/H7cFa8w8dem9n1fXeWmVTYTE T6le9phWmpJIK/doAUNXXmu+qmyIO+mcL/Z0FYgI=
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration
From: thomas nadeau <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13E238)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:26:18 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
X-Info: aspam skipped due to (g_smite_skip_relay)
X-Encryption: SSL encrypted
X-MyRbl: Color=Unknown ip=
X-IP-stats: Notspam Incoming Last 9, First 288, in=19, out=0, spam=0 Known=true ip=
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: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:26:52 -0000

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 6:48 AM, Harald Alvestrand <> wrote:
> I think we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good with
> regard to measuring impact.
> If we see a large cohort of first-time Buenos Aires attendees show up at
> later meetings (Berlin being the first chance for them to show), we have
> a strong signal that they thought it was worth it, and likely that
> having the meeting in BA helped the community by helping recruit them.
> Case closed (apart from some corner case possibilities I'm sure we,
> being engineers, can all imagine).
> If we don't see such a cohort, we need to dig deeper.

Or perhaps wonder why we should concern ourselves with this at all?


> Let's do the obvious measurements. They're not useless just because they
> don't show everything.
>> On 04/19/2016 08:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
>>> It should be pretty easy for the IAD to measure this by comparing the list
>>> of newcomers in Argentina to the list of participants in Berlin, for
>>> example.   I am fairly sure that they already do this, and possibly may even
>>> have made presentations about it from time to time at the plenary... :)
>> Hi Ted,
>> I am not picking on you but this idea is flawed at many levels.
>> Fundamentally we need to answer
>> 1. What does a (meaningful ?) contribution mean ?
>> 2. How does that relate to active participation ? Are there thresholds
>> or is it a continuum ? Does I mean writing a draft or is reviewing
>> drafts, taking minutes and hacking on code to check real world
>> implementation good enough.
>> The answers are more nuanced and varied than one might guess at first
>> glance. At IETF 95 in BA several long-time contributors participated
>> remotely. I am sure that they would take offense to this idea if they
>> have contributed remotely and on the mailing lists.
>> Just to emphasize, several WG chairs also do not attend every meeting.
>> Are they active ? I think there needs to be less emphasis on physical
>> meetings overall (FWIW I think we are already moving in that direction
>> quite rapidly. But at the same time F2F interaction cannot be done
>> away with completely IMHO and is also not going away.)
>> -- Vinayak