On 30-aug-04, at 9:29, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The subject of continent selection is, BTW, one of the real touchy
ones; my statistics show that in the North American contingent, the
attendance is cut in half when we meet outside North America; in the
Asian contingent, the attendance from the host country quadruples or
more when we meet in their country, while Europeans show more steady
attendance statistics.
Are you sure about this? The number of attendees in Vienna was a bit
higher than in Minneapolis last year. I also ran into a much larger
contingent of fellow countrymen in Vienna. (Don't look too far in the
past as you can't compare the 2000+ attendees of a few years ago with
the 1500- ones now, I'd assume the people who still come are more
loyal.)
Also, it's not just about the continent. I find the US somewhat
visitor-unfriendly in places like Minneapolis, and very much so on the
international airports of larger cities. I would very much like to see
a meeting in North America but outside the US.
I think the organizer needs to be able to make these tradeoffs in real
time, and without going back to the IETF for a consensus process on
individual meetings - but we do need to have our criteria right out in
the open.
I would prefer to split the process into two rather independent parts:
One (open) that sets the criteria, and one (subcontracted) that
attempts to find sites that fulfil the criteria. Then we can evaluate
the result - for economics, for venue performance, for sponsor
satisfaction (that too matters!), and for "fairness".
As to how to achieve all that.... I'm not at all sure.
Speaking as someone who has to pay for going to IETF meetings out of
his own pocket and as someone who has been trying to muster up some
enthusiasm to host a meeting, I'm not all that happy about the way
things are going now. I'll concentrate on the second role for now.
First of all, I'm not surprised it has been getting harder to find
sponsors. There are two main reasons for that: the duties of the
sponsor are solely defined by what's convenient for the people who
organize the meetings on behalf of the IETF (I'm assuming Foretec and
the secretariat but I can't be sure). This means the prospective host
is left with a plethora of duties, some of which are easily solved with
money (which some sponsors have), others with manpower (which some
sponsors have) and others with some very specific knowledge (which some
sponsors have). However, few sponsors are going to have all three.
Also, the process is completely un-transparent both from the view of
the attendee and from the view of the would-be host.
Last but not least, the people who handle this on the IETF side really
don't seem to care. For instance, for the past year I've been trying to
get an answer to the following questions:
Can you provide me with the current numbers that are relevant to
hosting the terminal room (and the social event) for an IETF meeting?
And which are the upcoming meetings for which there is no location
determined yet?
(Ok, I've only sent four or so messages, but still.) All of this makes
it hard to create enthusiasm within prospective host organizations.
I think it's essential to start publishing the following information on
a regular basis:
- meeting status: decided, under consideration, open
- date specific constraints, such as the continent that has been
selected
- up to date numbers for hotel rooms, meeting rooms, terminal room and
so on
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf