> On Apr 14, 2024, at 05:37, Jay Daley <exec-director@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Chris > >> On 12 Apr 2024, at 16:16, Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> ** On remote attendance: >> >> Attendance in Brisbane Australia was down to 66% that of Prague and forced remote attendance (would have attended but couldn't fund) increased to 75% from 60%. >> >> I think these results should definitely be made (more?) obvious so the community can make sure that it agrees with the IETF's choices for locations for meetings -- that we are enabling people to attend in person vs. placing barriers to the same. > > The meeting policy, BCP 226 RFC 8178, explicitly states the following: > > "We meet in different global locations, in order to spread the difficulty and cost of travel among active participants, balancing travel time and expense across participants based in various regions." > > So yes, there will be times when some people find it much easier to attend and others find it much harder. The question is not how to prevent that, we can’t, it is whether or not this is being done fairly given the geographic distribution of participants. A 24 year gap between meetings in Australia seems fair. I'm not saying it won't seem fair; however, not showing the data encourages biased speculation. I think we should show this data after every meeting, not just this last one; it will also show sites that are particularly effective. >> Also could you provide what percentage of the total registered attendees for the past few meetings was remote? That would be useful too. >> >> Total registrations: >> 117 San Francisco: 1579 >> 118 Prague: 1806 >> 119 Brisbane: 1206 > > Will do. I’m away for a week now and will look at it on my return. Thanks! > >> ** On Barista, Coffee: >> >> For the sake of us remote attendees, can you expand on "Yes, sorry."? Was it missing, was it bad? :) > > It was bad and I had assured people it would be excellent. :) Thanks, Chris. > Jay > > > -- > Jay Daley > IETF Executive Director > exec-director@xxxxxxxx >
