Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> (High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF) to Best Current Practice

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 21, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> wrote:
> When we went to a 1-1-1 policy, we agreed the locations should roughly match participants location to be fair. The argument was made that if we had more meetings outside north america, the participation would come to match approximately 1/3 , 1/3 , 1/3. That has clearly not happened so I think we need set the rotation of where we do meeting to something we agree is fair to our participants. 

What is the problem you are trying to solve here?   That is, what definition of "fair" are you using?   It's important to understand that "fair" is actually a construct, and not a truth; your idea of what's fair is just your idea of what's fair, not some universal thing.

In this case, what you have measured is the ability for participants from various continents to attend.   We can see that more attend when the conference is local.  Further, the beginning of the measurement period that you are citing had quite a few non-asian years, despite the supposed 1-1-1 rule.

So it's not actually clear to me that the statistics you cite support a change from the 1-1-1 rule.

What I notice when we are _not_ in Asia is that people I wanted to see at the conference who are from Asia are not there.   In Singapore a fair number of North Americans were not present, and that was also noticeable.   It would be nice if there were some way to fix this, but having fewer meetings in Asia probably isn't going to do it.