The attendance from South America and Africa has really been low.
And I am supposed to believe that the initial meetings in either South America or Africa would not reach some so high attendance from local community. I have already attended an IETF meeting funded by ISOC and have worked for both fields, industry and academia here in Brazil. Unfortunately, industry does likely not apply resources to the production of standards. Most of them are just "standards consumers". Academia produces some research related to IETF standards; however I guess there is still low involvement in IETF activities because research is commonly not applied. In summary, individuals do not have a significant involvement in IETF activities because they are not so motivated by local constraints.
Despite that, the current low attendance from these regions should not be a reason to exclude them of future IETF meetings.
If is possible to get sponsors/venues in these regions and to get interest of IETF community in travel to these regions so why could not schedule an IETF meeting there ?
If ISOC has a fellowship program to fund individuals from these regions it may mean that exists any interest in rise the attendance from these regions, and hold one future there is a step towards this objective.
br,
faria
De: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Para: Frederico Faria <fred_faria@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 11 de Agosto de 2010 23:30:00
Assunto: Re: Res: IETF Attendance by continent
Why? Other than folks who are funded by ISOC to attend, there is almost no attendance from Africa. And while we are starting to get some attendance from South America, I do not believe it approaches 10% of the total.
ISOC holds meetings in many interesting locations. ISOC's job includes outreach. The IETF's job is the production of standards.
It is certainly important that those standards be usable in all places, including the many parts of Africa and South America. But meeting there does not actually help us ensure that we meet those needs.
Yours,
Joel
Frederico Faria wrote:
>
> I think that for each 9 meetings ( 3 year cycle ) 1 meeting would be in South America and another in Africa.
>
>
> *De:* Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> *Para:* Ross Callon <rcallon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc:* IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> *Enviadas:* Quarta-feira, 11 de Agosto de 2010 17:08:34
> *Assunto:* Re: IETF Attendance by continent
>
> I like the 1-1-1-* model: of every 4 meetings, hold 1 in North America,
> 1 in Europe, 1 in Asia, and 1 anywhere (could be one of the above or
> some "non-standard" location like Africa or South America if that can be
> worked out).
>
> On 8/11/10 1:27 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
> > I don't see why the model has to add up to a multiple of 3 -- we have
> > an essentially unlimited number of future meetings to schedule, and
> > should be able handle a grouping that doesn't necessarily end on a
> > year boundary each time.
> >
> > My problem with 3-2-1 is that I am not sure whether the "1" should be
> > Europe or Asia, since the number of participants seems to be
> > relatively similar from each. It does occur to me that North America
> > still seems to have more active "repeat offenders" than the other
> > continents.
> >
> > This leads me to wonder about a 3-2-2 model.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > PS: I have also wondered why July seems to usually land us in Europe,
> > and I am quite looking forward to next July in Quebec City (pretty
> > much all of Canada being nice that time of year).
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>
> > [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Yoav Nir Sent: Monday,
> > August 09, 2010 5:47 AM To: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: IETF
> > Attendance by continent
> >
> > I'm more in favor the 3-2-1 model. The stats clearly show that the
> > largest group of "repeat offenders" comes from the US.
> >
> > But either way, I also agree that Europe is the summer is not ideal.
> > in the US there's much less of the "vacances" phenomenon.
> >
> > So how about: - March in Europe - July in N America - November either
> > in Asia or some other place (Africa, S America) or maybe sometimes in
> > N America, depending on which model we pick.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
De: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Para: Frederico Faria <fred_faria@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 11 de Agosto de 2010 23:30:00
Assunto: Re: Res: IETF Attendance by continent
Why? Other than folks who are funded by ISOC to attend, there is almost no attendance from Africa. And while we are starting to get some attendance from South America, I do not believe it approaches 10% of the total.
ISOC holds meetings in many interesting locations. ISOC's job includes outreach. The IETF's job is the production of standards.
It is certainly important that those standards be usable in all places, including the many parts of Africa and South America. But meeting there does not actually help us ensure that we meet those needs.
Yours,
Joel
Frederico Faria wrote:
>
> I think that for each 9 meetings ( 3 year cycle ) 1 meeting would be in South America and another in Africa.
>
>
> *De:* Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> *Para:* Ross Callon <rcallon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc:* IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> *Enviadas:* Quarta-feira, 11 de Agosto de 2010 17:08:34
> *Assunto:* Re: IETF Attendance by continent
>
> I like the 1-1-1-* model: of every 4 meetings, hold 1 in North America,
> 1 in Europe, 1 in Asia, and 1 anywhere (could be one of the above or
> some "non-standard" location like Africa or South America if that can be
> worked out).
>
> On 8/11/10 1:27 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
> > I don't see why the model has to add up to a multiple of 3 -- we have
> > an essentially unlimited number of future meetings to schedule, and
> > should be able handle a grouping that doesn't necessarily end on a
> > year boundary each time.
> >
> > My problem with 3-2-1 is that I am not sure whether the "1" should be
> > Europe or Asia, since the number of participants seems to be
> > relatively similar from each. It does occur to me that North America
> > still seems to have more active "repeat offenders" than the other
> > continents.
> >
> > This leads me to wonder about a 3-2-2 model.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > PS: I have also wondered why July seems to usually land us in Europe,
> > and I am quite looking forward to next July in Quebec City (pretty
> > much all of Canada being nice that time of year).
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>
> > [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Yoav Nir Sent: Monday,
> > August 09, 2010 5:47 AM To: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: IETF
> > Attendance by continent
> >
> > I'm more in favor the 3-2-1 model. The stats clearly show that the
> > largest group of "repeat offenders" comes from the US.
> >
> > But either way, I also agree that Europe is the summer is not ideal.
> > in the US there's much less of the "vacances" phenomenon.
> >
> > So how about: - March in Europe - July in N America - November either
> > in Asia or some other place (Africa, S America) or maybe sometimes in
> > N America, depending on which model we pick.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf