On Aug 7, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: > I do note that it seems clear that registration is related to where we meet. That show up pretty clearly the current data. So judging where to have future meetings based on past participation will tend to keep us where we used to meet. Nomcom is, as you point out, 3 of 5 meetings. WG chair and authors might have a longer history. I agree with the "openness" principle, but I disagree with this analysis. "3..5" is another way of saying "people that attend multiple times". As noted by others, first-time attendees (who by definition haven't attended anywhere else and therefore give us no guidance) and local-only attendees (which is unknowable but demonstrably a component) aren't very interesting. What is interesting is trying to serve people that participate. We went to Adelaide on the observation that we had IETF participation from there and a proposed host (which was also why Adelaide was chosen over, say, Sydney) at a time that we had never been to Australia. We went to Amsterdam, Stockholm, and so on on the observation that we had significant European participation and proposed hosts. We went to Japan when Japanese participation became important, and we're going to China in November largely in response to the fact of credible levels of Chinese participation. So observing participation doesn't limit us to where we have been, it extends us in the direction of those who partic ipate. Looking at people who have attended multiple meetings, and using the nomcom rubric, make sense to me more than worrying about first-time and local-only attendees. I would take it on faith that we will have the latter wherever we go, and build on those that return. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf