Unless I'm misreading this, these seem like horrible results. I guess they pass some low bar we've apparently set, but aren't there *better* choices in Asia region that don't eliminate half the people that would normally attend in person (and 62% of NA attendees)? I would think that we'd at least try to maximize overall participation not just make sure it meets some bare minimum (49% reduction in total on-site participation is good, really?) Thanks, Chris. IETF Chair <chair@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Hi! The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is appreciative of all of the community input provided during the July 2024 survey [1] on convening a meeting in China for IETF 125 (March 2026). Based on this input, the IESG has decided that a venue in China would meet the requirements of Section 2, “Why We Meet”, of RFC8718. This assessment answers the question posed in step 4b of the IETF LLC’s venue identification and selection process [2]. More details about this decision and the survey can be found at [3]. Regards, Roman (as IETF Chair for the IESG) [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Og9ESsfDWrhy5Ea8tso7HfaqY5A/ [2] https://www.ietf.org/meeting/planning/ [3] https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_125_Decision_and_Survey_Summary.pdf _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list -- ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-announce-leave@xxxxxxxx
