There is no objective way to identify 'primary contributors' other than by
assuming the regular attendees are also contributors.
This is simply silly. It's not much of a secret, in any WG, who does the
work and who comes to listen.
We've tried looking at how many local first-time attendees from (say)
Korea later became regular attendees but the data are hard to state in any
meaningful way and the time constants are long (years).
This is a somewhat round-about way of saying that you have no data to
support your position.
We certainly know that going a long way from most places,
as we did in Adelaide, impacts attendance significantly -
but my recollection is that Adelaide was a very successful
meeting in terms of WGs making progress.
Obviously recollections differ.
By scattering meetings all over the world, with no consideration of the
average travel time, you encourage the creation of a class of professional
standards-meeting-attenders, which is just the opposite of what is wanted.
income [from local participants] that we badly need.
Well, this is the first I've heard that we want to maximize the number of
people who come to listen rather than to work. Everything I've ever heard
in the past suggested the opposite. If we now want to maximize the number
of passive attendees, I'm sure we can find a way to do it without scattering
the meetings all around the world.
Ietf mailing list