It should be pretty easy for the IAD to measure this by comparing the list of
newcomers in Argentina to the list of participants in Berlin, for example. I
am fairly sure that they already do >this, and possibly may even have made
presentations about it from time to time at the plenary... :)
We have been having a discussion in the Diversity about this.
Some stats that I have for Latin America:
8 newcomers signed up for Internet Draft Review teams
1 newcomer participating in IPPM
But, that is only what I know via personal information. I don't know how to do
this automatically. I suspect that these newcomers are not likely to get
funding to participate in Berlin. But, we can get them to be active on email
lists (as a start).
Nalini
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Christian O'Flaherty
<christian(_dot_)oflaherty(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 4/18/16 9:09 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
But
I think these issues should be balanced with the overall benefit
that the IETF World Tour provides.
As I've said repeatedly, I don't think the world tour actually
does bring much benefit. I'm very hopeful that some of the
South Americans who attended their first IETF meeting because
it was held in Buenos Aires will continue to participate (as in:
bring in work and participate in ongoing work, and not as in: sit
in meetings) but historically that has not been the case.
BTW… if there’s a way to keep track and measure that additional active
participation from Latin America I’ll be happy to do it.
I’m open to suggestions on how it can be than.
Christian
I also
think that the world tour tends to have the unintended side-effect
of overemphasizing the importance of meetings to our process.
Also, note that a large number of regulars opted to skip the meeting
in Buenos Aires. Granted, there are those who might see that as
a benefit.
Melinda