On 8/6/2010 5:37 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
A question for you. Should we select meeting venues to minimize the
cost/time/etc. of all attendees or just, for example, w.g. chairs? Many
people have suggested that the IAOC should be looking at overall attendee
costs, but there might be a difference in what group we try to optimize.
Personally, I lean toward more openness and would prefer to do optimize for
all attendees.
<aside>
I assume you mean "inclusiveness" rather than just "openness". Openness might
just mean visible; inclusiveness facilitates actual participation.
Inclusiveness for meetings means making it easy for an extremely wide range of
folk to attend. That would mean choosing places that are especially accessible,
with minimal transportation hops -- less travel time and cost -- and meeting
venues well situated very close to plenty of lodging and eating choices. This
would be friendly to poor students as well as professionals funded by their
companies. (We've been using the word "volunteer" to mean people funded by
their companies, rather than, say, folks who are self-funded and actually doing
a form of volunteer work.)
</aside>
But back to the current topic...
I tried to label the base group as "workers", where wg chairs were merely
exemplars.
The challenge of a broad concept like "all attendees" is that a sufficiently
large proportion of tourists means that their demographics would swamp the
concerns of folks actually doing work. It is one thing to be friendly tourists
and quite another to let them distort decision-making about site selection.
(And for reference, I'm not trying to class new workers as tourists. Perhaps
"observers" is a more useful term than "tourists".)
As an experiment, I just did some averaging of the data to try to remove the
local effect. I removed the attendance number for local attendees.
...
A reasonable analytic gimmick, IMO. Pretty cool, actually, by virtue of its
simplicity while retaining meaningfulness.
For the past three meetings it was:
Africa 1%
Asia 30%
Europe 26%
North America 41%
Australia 2%
South America 1%
The NA number doesn't seem enough higher to warrant a 2-1-1 pattern, although
I'd suspect one could reasonably argue for it.
However...
For all of the meetings it was a little different (higher % in NA, less in
Asia, about the same in Europe). I not sure it is as valid since there was
only one meeting in Asia and many in North America.
I assume "all of the meetings" means back to IETF 72? Hence, slightly more than
two years of meetings. That seems a reasonable slice of history.
The primary implication of the difference between 'all' versus 'this past year'
is that Asia is indeed trending up.
Not a brilliant insight, but I'd class this basis for the assertion as much
stronger than when locals are included.
Many thanks for this extra effort. With this, I'd say that 1-1-1 is
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf