Dave, > These numbers probably need to be correlated with the venue of each meeting. One would expect higher Asian attendance at an Asian venue, and so forth. Controlling for venue could produce a very different interpretation of the numbers. I think that shows up clearly in the numbers. > > More substantively I heard someone ask a particularly useful question that is, unfortunately, challenging to answer: Namely, what is the distribution among the folks who are doing primary work. That is, what is the distribution among IETF management, working group chairs and authors? (There are serious workers who are not among this set and should also be counted, but I've no idea how to label and include them in this subset analysis.) > > Meetings are subject to a substantial spike in local attendance. These folk > are, of course, quite welcome, but they typically do not contribute much to the > actual work of the IETF. > > Because the primary goal of an IETF meeting is to get work done, knowing the > distribution of workers might inform efforts to choose venues. A question for you. Should we select meeting venues to minimize the cost/time/etc. of all attendees or just, for example, w.g. chairs? Many people have suggested that the IAOC should be looking at overall attendee costs, but there might be a difference in what group we try to optimize. Personally, I lean toward more openness and would prefer to do optimize for all attendees. > > To my knowledge, nothing is recorded that makes this analysis straightforward. > > My impression is that perhaps 1/4-1/3 of the attendees are long-term IETF workers who will go anywhere, with perhaps 1/3-1/2 being much more recent repeat attendees. Attending multiple meetings is a good indicator of some involvement -- since that's the criterion for Nomcom participation -- but it's probably only a moderate predictor As an experiment, I just did some averaging of the data to try to remove the local effect. I removed the attendance number for local attendees. That is, if the meeting was in Europe, I removed the Europe attendance number. Then I averaged over the past three meetings and for the whole series. My thinking was that the non-local attendees are probably the core IETF attendees. It should remove the local effect. For the past three meetings it was: Africa 1% Asia 30% Europe 26% North America 41% Australia 2% South America 1% For all of the meetings it was a little different (higher % in NA, less in Asia, about the same in Europe). I not sure it is as valid since there was only one meeting in Asia and many in North America. PDF below with the numbers. Bob
Attachment:
AttendanceByContinent.xlsb.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf