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

[thomas nadeau <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 6:48 AM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> 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?

tom

> 
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>