Re: IETF Attendance by continent
2010-08-08 13:15:33
Hi Bob -
I appreciate and believe that this is your highest priority, but I think we may
differ on how to best accomplish a successful meeting. Maastricht for me was
an example of the low end of sort of successful sites and that's primarily
because of the conference center with hotels model rather than the opposite
model of a hotel with a conference center.
In Maastricht, there wasn't a central hotel bar, no place to happen upon 3 or 4
disjoint conversations on wide topics, no 11pm discourse on how to fix the
problem that came up in the session earlier that day. No place to buttonhole
Russ or Olaf over a beer after dinner, etc (although they may appreciate that).
A great portion of the IETFs success is due to cross fertilization and
serendipity and that has been fed in the past by having a comfortable place
with drinks and food that you pretty much have to go by to get to your hotel
room. Typically, these have been the most successful (in terms of new ideas and
energy) meetings.
In Maastricht you had that big central room with uncomfortable chairs and
pretty much no reason to be there if you weren't using the internet or weren't
either going to or coming from a WG session. I saw few random gatherings (but
I admit, I probably wouldn't have been able to tell them from the non-random
ones). Compare and contrast this with Anaheim for example. So, Maastricht was
probably fine if you were narrowly focused on your WG(s), but not so great if
you were interested in how the various problems might interact or were
interested in learning about the IETF itself.
It's also possible that I'm waxing philosophical for a portion of IETF culture
than is no longer important to the current crop of participants - but that's
life I guess.
Mike
At 11:16 PM 8/7/2010, Bob Hinden wrote:
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 pa
rtic
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
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent, Marshall Eubanks
- Message not available
- Month- was Re: IETF Attendance by continent, Janet P Gunn
- RE: IETF Attendance by continent, Glen Zorn
- Message not available
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent, Fred Baker
- Message not available
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent, Bob Hinden
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent,
Michael StJohns <=
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent, Mark Nottingham
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent, Joel Jaeggli
- RE: IETF Attendance by continent, Elwell, John
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent, Eliot Lear
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent, Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent, Michael Richardson
- RE: IETF Attendance by continent, Ross Callon
- Re: IETF Attendance by continent, Peter Saint-Andre
- Res: IETF Attendance by continent, Frederico Faria
|
|
|