On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 4:58 AM Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Be careful about lines-of-code metrics for productivity.
While overall I agree with the notion that, as working meetings, locations would ideally be chosen for whatever maximizes successful outcomes over the long term, there are so many ways to measure success and so many variables that go into such a calculation that it's not clear how that you could optimize even incrementally except in really obvious cases.
For instance, would an MSP meeting raise in-person attendance because it's centrally located within the US, or would it reduce such attendance because it's easier to attend remotely from a nearby timezone? Does meeting in a new city or in a region of the world we don't often pick create sustained attendance from new participants, or have other coat-tail effects that aren't obvious or easily measurable? Does meeting in Brisbane vs. Singapore result in better standards output, FSVO "better"?
I think we should aim for diversity of location precisely because it's not at all clear that we could optimize location choice, even with the benefit of hindsight. Better to meet in different places to average-out the good and bad aspects of each. Stick to small optimizations (like meeting frequently in Prague because attendees like it for a variety of reasons) where the benefits are fairly clear to an obvious variable.
Kyle
