IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Mon, 15 April 2024 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791FEC14F61F; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qYQwKaokhxve; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A02C14F618; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ja.int.chopps.org.chopps.org (unknown [172.222.91.149]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81FB27D01E; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:10:09 +0000 (UTC)
References: <DC6C12FF-601C-4180-9FD1-4A1589531113@ietf.org> <m2y19iinsy.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org> <B6F57D48-8E9E-409A-BD26-3706F102188B@ietf.org> <27F155AC-9B10-4FAD-ABE6-ACD79769B571@chopps.org> <1E1EF642-93B7-4245-B702-839B850AB369@ietf.org> <15323534-6E6F-4EC8-954B-9BB6207EDF4C@chopps.org> <86800871-EFAF-4394-BD2A-C7110F574228@juniper.net>
User-agent: mu4e 1.8.14; emacs 28.2
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [119all] Result of the IETF 119 Brisbane post-meeting survey
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:07:09 -0400
In-reply-to: <86800871-EFAF-4394-BD2A-C7110F574228@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <m2pluqi8g1.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vqHU-SN5gsbZNCOwpFh0Y7T8fJ0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:10:10 -0000

John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> writes:

> Hi Chris,
>
> On Apr 14, 2024, at 7:23 AM, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
>> forced/unwanted remote participation
>
> It occurs to me I don’t know what you mean by this phase. Obviously, nobody is
> literally being forced to participate remotely. I guess you’re probably talking
> about the responses to Q5 other than “it is my preferred way to participate”?

Yes, from the survey:

"For the third time, we asked people who participated remotely (Q5), why they did and if they would have preferred to participate onsite (Q5a). Once again, the major factor, cited by 75% of people, was the lack funding to travel."

Thanks,
Chris.


> —John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email