This might also be a useful question to ask; it might be better to
make it multiple choice along the lines of
(B. If not, because of
- general expense
- registration fees
- difficulty in arranging visa's or other travel preparations
- interference from other meetings or work schedule
- location of the meeting city
- location of the meeting venue )
However, that wasn't quite what I was suggesting. I have heard this
issue of nearby access to
"stuff" come up before, and I know some people consider it quite
important, so much
so that certain locations might be ruled out just for only having
venues that are too isolated in their urban context.
So, in the context of a location that may be considered isolated, I
think it might be
useful to consider this an experiment, and judge the reaction of the
the meeting towards this variable. Note that this would require
polling those who attended, rather than those
who did not.
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Ed Juskevicius wrote:
Dave Crocker write:
the questionnaire will not serve to understand the needs
of people who are *unable to attend*
Perhaps we should ask a more open-ended question (i.e. "B" below):
A) Did you attend IETF-65?
B) If not, why not?
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:26 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks
Subject: Re: IETF65 hotel location
However, to be constructive, I would like to suggest adding two
no questions to the next meeting questionnaire :
A.) Do you feel that the venue chosen for the meeting was too remote,
terms of accessibility of restaurants, bars, your or other hotels,
etc. ? >
B.) (If "A" is answered yes.) Would having another IETF meeting in a
that is similarly remote make it less likely that you would
attend ? >
Asking questions like this could be quite useful.
The challenge is in making sure that the right people get asked.
If the questions are asked of people who already attended the meeting,
sampling is of people with the resources to accommodate the current
While some might grouse about one characteristic or another of the
choices, the questionnaire will not serve to understand the needs of
are *unable to attend* IETF meetings because of current costs, due to
remoteness, hotel fees, or the like.
(By the way, the "what will make it less likely you will attend"
question is often interesting to ask, but is usually not a good
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list