[Mtgvenue] adoption of draft-krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy-01, question on increasing meeting attendance as a policy item
Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 13 January 2017 22:39 UTC
Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907321294D8 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:39:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uAH5oKjAUE1k for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:39:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06E09129466 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:39:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 127so36983508pfg.1 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:39:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:message-id:date :cc:to; bh=xE3e1khgx83RjoMe6JflSQW7+G+sFbW2Vk5jZb5Vs7c=; b=lRXhS2nhAvM50ihLys6cpO64gTchOq9Z52TU8OWcUWwFlzoLNV3Wn302C9vmEC0Osu c23bPQFDCq0RqwV0j3mFhm/4zwIf/6c4M2MZ1AFLK/4WMqzsOlWPkVW6SY3RS5m/SFIR LXIpLwghf6h6l2zZZ5Is4Hd9B8FzZw96k94JDj/xOIaqncQ7jR+dNEo9QJ2W0aGfYUkN DnNj8w43bmLNEPYk1XHPxPf/VnzvG9mCe5kBvnV2hldbifcbSz05yWgr97Nc067zxetE MNnf+ULR/bjUtQt7pWco+q3SCMwliiTMu2/37ZhlkwQ36RrEfISesG/CzWI9QeQT88JU KaCQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=xE3e1khgx83RjoMe6JflSQW7+G+sFbW2Vk5jZb5Vs7c=; b=YkdBcE1Ce8q3CEG1KuhU7hgckXEKv3fNtFkvP4QiepmOkVmjRlzWmO6uSbPGBqZ5OJ +jtaNb8T2gGSgdQN814Sg5gJw8zTLBQWNrpisKcKktltBy98SHQJEpXCw+BGZILgZF+w +k8373kqkOnnOhMRRLXA10u8NSF7o40Q6JgbNOqVqm5t6NczXJ5hFoKUWSCLEODUhgY0 9CDkhsBTEhRW531PgBu+Mnfk2/7OGusUjqK2+SGYcRAx58BkVGW4UE+mFO+WaHZ3p1aW fBiMx26TKxpm0ih9Y+HEKlF8lS0DWWaYtPYJVVVDRBqxMqUzuI+6wjidIrm/mo4HFaRU 7qPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKBMD54bU6e+yJidkGMS0TWoxtFLsbAWl7drJ4MGdDIuCNbvAmnw6dPCAsMkhoGEg==
X-Received: by 10.84.254.74 with SMTP id a10mr32460816pln.57.1484347170694; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (wsip-184-191-158-59.sd.sd.cox.net. [184.191.158.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n188sm15647356pga.1.2017.01.13.14.39.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:39:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Message-Id: <9B4B0D03-B2DD-4718-96FF-34ED17E675DB@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:39:29 -0800
To: Soininen Jonne Nokia-NET/Espoo <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/XpzyWcB6OiD9zEz7o-tbEZ3_hFA>
Cc: "mtgvenue@ietf.org" <mtgvenue@ietf.org>
Subject: [Mtgvenue] adoption of draft-krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy-01, question on increasing meeting attendance as a policy item
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:39:32 -0000
I do not believe that positioning IETF meetings in various locations has had the effect of increasing attendance from those regions. It will have an effect on the meeting held there, of course, but the question applies to subsequent meetings - does the new participant then engage in ongoing work, or start work? I would invite a statistical analysis, and would expect a negative result - if people have a business reason to be involved, they will be involved regardless of where meetings are held. That said, positioning IETF meetings in various locations does have the effect of distributing costs borne by people in the indicated regions to other participants; if the redistribution is fair, that is an argument for adding a region to the rotation policy.