On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 7:02 AM Ross Finlayson <finlayson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2023, at 8:34 PM, Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Well, I don't have anything against Minneapolis. But I don't think you can look around at an IETF meeting and wonder about the diversity problem if you're aiming for that location. That was 99% white until after WWII, and the overall metro area is still not very diverse.*
Wow - the “diversity" obsession has now progressed to the point that we are now worrying about the diversity in ***meeting locations***.
(If you’re really worried (though you shouldn’t be) about the 'lack of diversity’ in recent meeting locations, then look at Yokohama :-)
What worries me is the low attendance of US ietf meeting when located in US (it is reducing compared with years before), the 117 meeting had low attendance maybe because of location, but I am not sure why Yokohama is higher attended. IMHO, the first priority is for 1) higher number of attendance per meeting 2) affordable attendance per location 3) higher progress number of RFCs_production per year and then 4) diversity of meeting attendance per year,
The survey questions should include 1) prefered 3 diverse locations per year, 2) management performance per area, because I think RFCs production is going lower as it is not reasonable that some RFCs take 3 years to be published after adoption by community.
AB
AB
