On 12/27/23 08:14, Shashank Yadav wrote: > Well yes, meetings happening where the internet has developed is quite > understood and explains the US/EU back and forth. But by "prison of > geography" I am referring to the respective increase and decrease in > participation when meetings are in (and not in) a particular geography. > And this applies to the US/EU participation as well. I guess what I was > getting at in my previous email is how different are the physical vs > online meetings in terms of participation incentives etc - and if the > online mode as primary meeting mechanism does produce the most overall > participation, why not just do that? > > Being able to participate online does help making contributions significantly easier. In person informal discussion is still helpful. Gaining an appreciation for how the internet is used in other parts of the world can lead to higher quality and more relevant RFCs, so even if not everybody can travel, having a subset of participants who do travel is helpful. For new contributors, attending a local meeting in person will likely be a better on boarding experience. As people can still participate online, a probable explanation for the general increase when meetings were entirely virtual is that people had more time for online participation due to the travel restrictions. Having fully virtual meetings at present may not result in a significantly increased participation level holding all other factors constant. Certainly if one had to choose between all in person or all virtual meetings, with no option of hybrid, all virtual would be the way to go, but even hybrid meetings where someone shares their presentation, streams audio, and ensures questions are either repeated at a microphone or said at a microphone enables remote participation. > > > regards, Shashank > The task is not impossible. <https://muskdeer.blogspot.com/> > > > > ---- On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 00:44:05 +0530 *Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>* wrote --- > > On 26-Dec-23 22:51, Shashank Yadav wrote: > > Thanks. I hope its alright to revive this thread. > > That's one of the great advantages of email over live messaging! > > > It is clear that the meeting participation has a geographic drift > to it. The overall participation was highest when the meetings were > done online, and generally, participation for a meeting goes up > significantly from the host country/region. I'm curious if this > "prison of geography" also has any economic incentives/consequences > for hosts and participants, and has IETF considered ways of breaking > free from it? > > Without doing any kind of study, it seems to me that the IETF's > geographical spread over the years broadly maps where Internet > technology has been *developed*, not where it has been used. I don't > mean to devalue the contributions of operators and NICs, and we > always need more operators contributing to the IETF, but in general > the IETF population refelects the developer population. Naturally > enough, that strongly impacts the choice of meeting locations. > > Brian > > > > > > > regards, Shashank > > The task is not impossible. <https://muskdeer.blogspot.com/&; > <https://muskdeer.blogspot.com/&;>gt; > > > > > > > > > > ---- On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 02:25:16 +0530 *Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>>* > wrote --- > > > > On 23-Nov-23 08:52, Robert Sparks wrote: > > > Look into the proceedings, typically the plenary chair slides, > for each of those meetings for the statistics you are searching for. > > > > As far as I can see, the first time a pie chart of participants by > country was presented was IETF 50, and it became a regular feature > of plenaries a year or two later. The raw data was not public for > privacy reasons. Recovering the country information before IETF 72 > probably means scraping the participant lists and analysing them > manually. Since then, the country is shown in the published > participant lists. > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > For instance: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-iesgietf-chair-slides-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-iesgietf-chair-slides-00> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-iesgietf-chair-slides-00&; <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-ietf-sessb-iesgietf-chair-slides-00&;>gt; > > > > > > The /stats/ application in the datatracker has many known > issues, particularly the further back you go in time. > > > > > > See also https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/issues/3712 > <https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/issues/3712> > <https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/issues/3712&; > <https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/issues/3712&;>gt; > > > > > > RjS > > > > > > On 11/22/23 4:10 AM, Shashank Yadav wrote: > > >> Hello everyone, > > >> > > >> I was looking at IETF meeting stats and it seems that for some > meetings country-wise stats are not fully available (i.e. > data-tracker shows others as 0% > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/90/country/&; > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/90/country/&;> > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/90/country/&&; > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/90/country/&&;>gt;gt;). > Right now it is happening from meeting 99 and before. Earlier I had > encountered it for pre-106 meetings too. Is this a problem at my end > alone? How can I access all the stats about country participation in > (all of) the meetings? > > >> > > >> regards, Shashank > > >> > > >> The task is not impossible <https://muskdeer.blogspot.com/&; > <https://muskdeer.blogspot.com/&;> <https://muskdeer.blogspot.com/&&; > <https://muskdeer.blogspot.com/&&;>gt;gt;. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
