Hi Shashank > On 27 Dec 2023, at 05:14, Shashank Yadav <shashank@asatae.foundation> 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? All the evidence is that, of the modes of interaction we have tried, the current hybrid model produces better participation as measured across a range of factors. Looking at numbers, fully online meetings do not produce the most overall participation. If you are using https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/overview/ for stats then I’m sorry to say that there is problem with those as they are significantly under-counting for recent onsite meetings. You will find correct figures here (but the regional breakdown there is not correct). https://dashboard.meeting.ietf.org/reports In addition to numbers, we also track perceptions of meetings in our post-meeting surveys and they show that hybrid meetings on the whole have higher levels of satisfaction. This was supported by many comments about the value from meeting in-person. See the two tables in https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-114-post-meeting-survey/ https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-118-post-meeting-survey/ The IESG did some work to measure productivity (I don’t have a reference to hand), which showed that overall IETF productivity when we only met only was notably down. Given the stats problem mentioned above, I have not been able to compare regional participation across the modes of meeting. Jay > > <1703653311260000_715198514.png> > > > regards, Shashank > The task is not impossible. > > > > ---- 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/> > > > > > > > > > > ---- On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 02:25:16 +0530 *Brian E Carpenter <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> > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > 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/&>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/&>gt;. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-director@xxxxxxxx
