Though interesting, what is the intent of the use of this data
Martin
Martin C. Dolly
Sent to you by AT&T... America's Fastest Mobile Broadband Network. Rethink
Possible.
+1.609.903.3360
----- Original Message -----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; IETF discussion list
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Fri Aug 06 18:37:15 2010
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Mike,
On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Bob -
Would it be possible to get two additional version of this chart?
1) Including only those who were nomcom eligible (3 of 5 of the last
meetings) at each meeting.
2) Including only those who were one of WG chair, document editor or author
for a an active document at that meeting (e.g. WG met and there were active
IDs), IESG/IAB
Its unclear to me whether the raw numbers are actually useful as they tend to
be fairly skewed by local attendees. That in itself isn't bad, but what I
think what we're looking for are long-term contributors/collaborators. I
know it may be difficult to assemble the above lists, but I believe the data
does exist electronically.
I don't know how much of this is possible or how hard it would be. I will
investigate.
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 think an important part of the meeting rotation is to equalize the travel
cost/pain for most attendees. This would point to actual current attendance
more than say w.g. chairs.
Bob
Bob
Thanks - Mike
At 04:44 PM 8/6/2010, Bob Hinden wrote:
During my IAOC chair plenary talk at IETF78 (slides are in the proceedings)
I asked a question about continuing the current meeting policy (3 in North
America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Asia in two year period (3-2-1) ) or changing to
a 1-1-1 policy based on current meeting attendance. The talk included a
graph of attendance by continent for IETF72-IETF78. I was asked to provide
this data to the community.
It is attached. It includes the raw data and a new graph that shows
attendance by percentage. It appears to me that a 1-1-1 meeting policy is
justified by current overall IETF meeting attendance.
Your comments are appreciated.
Bob
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf