Mike,
Just to be clear, the highest priority in venue selection is to find a venue
where we can have a successful meeting. We won't go anywhere were we don't
think we can get the work done. This discussion is where to have a meeting,
but not at the expense of the work itself.
Bob
On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Fred said this much more eloquently than I could.
On the IETF78 attendees list there's been a lot of discussion about where to
meet - with the primary consideration seeming to be "pretty and small". I
may be in the minority, but I'd really rather the IETF go places where the
ability to "get work done" is the primary consideration.
So going forward, I hope the considerations for location will give higher
weight to meeting the needs of the folks doing the work (my second list of
folk) and the folks who keep coming back (the first list) than to the single
meeting snap shots. Its possible the demographics for my two lists are
similar to the raw demographics so my point may be moot - but why guess when
we have the data?
Mike
At 12:34 AM 8/7/2010, Fred Baker wrote:
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 par
tic
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf