Hi Vinayak,
At 02:22 11-11-2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
I find this logic circular. There is more participation from Americans
(people from US) so more meetings are held there and so more people
from US attend. So it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. The IAOC /
I thought so too at some point. I am not sure anymore. Your views
and the ones from Arturo Servin seem to converge. There is some
discontent on the question of meeting locations within the group of
people who attend IETF meetings. When someone raises the question
the discussion turns towards the IAOC. It is then pointed out that
the IAOC does not do outreach. I didn't use the "IETF" in the
previous sentence as it is difficult for there to be any
consciousness of the IETF as a group.
When Adrian Farrell commented about newcomers [1], he mentioned:
"This number (around 10%) seems consistent over all meetings.
So naively, we should be growing our attendance by around 300
per year."
Andrew Malis replied [2] that:
"Since attendance is largely flat over last few years, obviously
newcomers that become regulars are offset by existing participants
that drop out or cannot make a particular meeting."
Fred Baker posted some data and suggested a more thorough analysis
[3]. His message also provides some insight about the change in
meeting locations over the years.
Quoting a message which was posted to this mailing list [4]:
"This specific programme is designed to increase IETF
participation from emerging and developing economies."
Is there any analysis to determine whether there has been an increase
in IETF participation from these economies? Is the outreach effort a failure?
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75742.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75745.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75776.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75140.html