Agreed. On several evening, the 20 minute walk into the city centre or back provided a refreshing opportunity to talk to somebody whom otherwise I might hardly have spoken to. John > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Mark Nottingham > Sent: 09 August 2010 01:42 > To: Michael StJohns > Cc: Bob Hinden; IETF discussion list > Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent > > Just to give a counterpoint, Maastricht was incredibly > productive. Perhaps you didn't see clusters of people at the > conference centre, but there were plenty of groups going for > walks, going out to dinner, and having interesting discussions. > > I don't subscribe to the notion that shutting everyone into a > confererence centre-cum-campus with all amenities onsite (and > a corresponding dearth of other options, e.g. Minneapolis or > Anaheim) is going to lead to higher productivity. > > Cheers, > > > On 09/08/2010, at 4:14 AM, Michael StJohns wrote: > > > Hi Bob - > > > > I appreciate and believe that this is your highest > priority, but I think we may differ on how to best accomplish > a successful meeting. Maastricht for me was an example of > the low end of sort of successful sites and that's primarily > because of the conference center with hotels model rather > than the opposite model of a hotel with a conference center. > > > > In Maastricht, there wasn't a central hotel bar, no place > to happen upon 3 or 4 disjoint conversations on wide topics, > no 11pm discourse on how to fix the problem that came up in > the session earlier that day. No place to buttonhole Russ or > Olaf over a beer after dinner, etc (although they may > appreciate that). > > > > A great portion of the IETFs success is due to cross > fertilization and serendipity and that has been fed in the > past by having a comfortable place with drinks and food that > you pretty much have to go by to get to your hotel room. > Typically, these have been the most successful (in terms of > new ideas and energy) meetings. > > > > In Maastricht you had that big central room with > uncomfortable chairs and pretty much no reason to be there if > you weren't using the internet or weren't either going to or > coming from a WG session. I saw few random gatherings (but I > admit, I probably wouldn't have been able to tell them from > the non-random ones). Compare and contrast this with Anaheim > for example. So, Maastricht was probably fine if you were > narrowly focused on your WG(s), but not so great if you were > interested in how the various problems might interact or were > interested in learning about the IETF itself. > > > > It's also possible that I'm waxing philosophical for a > portion of IETF culture than is no longer important to the > current crop of participants - but that's life I guess. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > At 11:16 PM 8/7/2010, Bob Hinden wrote: > >> 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 p > a > > rtic > >>>> 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 > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf