Re: [Ietf108planning] FW: Preview of survey on virtual meetings

I left a bunch of comments directly in the survey, especially about questions that I wasn’t sure how to answer because I didn’t fully understand them… but a few quick comments below.

> On 23. Apr 2020, at 17:29, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Wow what a strange way to select a country... Can we simply list them? (I love to see
>>> Belgium at the top for once :-) )
>> 
>> I agree that we really don't need this level of granularity -- a major
>> geography option seems better, just like we do for.... oh, bugger, I
>> didn't realize we capture this level of granularity for meetings --
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/106/country/
> 
> Even if we need the country, a simple alphabetical list of countries is best.
> If there's some reason to separate them by continent, it's certainly
> neither necessary nor useful to separate, say, Eastern Europe from
> Northern Europe.

Agree. That distinction is weird. Don’t we usual just do the continent and not on country level. Do we need country level?
> 
>> I'm somewhat uncomfortable that this survey it too long / granular,
>> and that we are overcollecting / people will get bored midway through
>> and we bias towards hardcore attendees...
> 
> Exactly the comment I was going to make: this is way too long.  If we
> do something like this, we *have to* keep track of how many people
> bail out... how many answer some of the earlier questions and none of
> the later ones.

Yes, I gave up midway of maybe 60-70% at the first look this morning.

> 
>> "Subscriber to an IETF mailing list within the last year"  -- this
>> feels like weird wording. I don't think I **subscribed** to any
>> mailing lists last year...
> 
> This one, in particular, is likely to mislead, and the wording that's
> there now is *better* than the suggested change.  We don't want to
> know whether you created a *new* subscription, which is what I hear
> from "subscribed to".  We want to know whether, during the last year,
> you were a subscriber -- whether you follow discussions, which is hard
> to judge, so "being subscribed" is a lame proxy for that.

Agree. I think there are also two questions merged here: on about the role and one about participation. Maybe we can split this up.

> 
>> "Posted to an IETF mailing list within the last year", "Posted to an
>> IRTF mailing list within the last year" (and similar) -- do we need
>> this level of granularity? Could it instead be "Posted to an IETF or
>> IRTF mailing list within the last year" (and same for subscribe,
>> chair, etc).
> 
> I agree.  If we want to know about IETF and IRTF separately, we could
> simply ask "participate in IETF working groups" and "participate in
> IRTF research groups".  It's a lot harder to tease out levels of
> participation, and I'm not sure to what extent it's useful to try.

There might be a point about understanding IRTF participation separately from IETF participation for the virtual schedule. But maybe better to split this up into two questions.

> 
>> "Have each WG write 3 sentences to justify why they need to meet
>> during the meeting week rather than as an interim meeting" --- oooh,
>> interesting, but how do we evaluate the answers? Monkey knife fight?
> 
> I went both ways on this when I read it, but in the end decided that
> it has to be the responsible AD who decides, and then "discuss with
> you responsible AD" works better for me than "each working group write
> an essay.”

Agree. Found this option also really weird and it doesn’t touch the real point about who decides. Left a similar comment.

> 
>> I think that there are way too many time zones listed - we may need to
>> manually make a drop down if survey monkey doesn't have a ~24 item
>> list... Yes, we may miss UTC+12:45, but meh...
> 
> Honestly, most of us are quite used to picking our time zones out of
> long TZ lists anyway.  I don't really see that as a problem.

This is the question where I gave up. Would prefer a different more simple question or questions.

> 
> Barry
> 
> -- 
> Ietf108planning mailing list
> Ietf108planning@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf108planning
> 