Mike, Just to be clear, the highest priority in venue selection is to find a venue where we can have a successful meeting. We won't go anywhere were we don't think we can get the work done. This discussion is where to have a meeting, but not at the expense of the work itself. Bob On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > Fred said this much more eloquently than I could. > > On the IETF78 attendees list there's been a lot of discussion about where to meet - with the primary consideration seeming to be "pretty and small". I may be in the minority, but I'd really rather the IETF go places where the ability to "get work done" is the primary consideration. > > So going forward, I hope the considerations for location will give higher weight to meeting the needs of the folks doing the work (my second list of folk) and the folks who keep coming back (the first list) than to the single meeting snap shots. Its possible the demographics for my two lists are similar to the raw demographics so my point may be moot - but why guess when we have the data? > > Mike > > > > At 12:34 AM 8/7/2010, Fred Baker wrote: > >> 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 par tic >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf