On Aug 7, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I do note that it seems clear that registration is related to where we meet.
That show up pretty clearly the current data. So judging where to have
future meetings based on past participation will tend to keep us where we
used to meet. Nomcom is, as you point out, 3 of 5 meetings. WG chair and
authors might have a longer history.
I agree with the "openness" principle, but I disagree with this analysis.
"3..5" is another way of saying "people that attend multiple times". As noted
by others, first-time attendees (who by definition haven't attended anywhere
else and therefore give us no guidance) and local-only attendees (which is
unknowable but demonstrably a component) aren't very interesting. What is
interesting is trying to serve people that participate. We went to Adelaide on
the observation that we had IETF participation from there and a proposed host
(which was also why Adelaide was chosen over, say, Sydney) at a time that we
had never been to Australia. We went to Amsterdam, Stockholm, and so on on the
observation that we had significant European participation and proposed hosts.
We went to Japan when Japanese participation became important, and we're going
to China in November largely in response to the fact of credible levels of
Chinese participation. So observing participation doesn't limit us to where we
have been, it extends us in the direction of those who partic
ipate.
Looking at people who have attended multiple meetings, and using the nomcom
rubric, make sense to me more than worrying about first-time and local-only
attendees. I would take it on faith that we will have the latter wherever we
go, and build on those that return.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf