Dave On 14/11/2012 17:59, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > On 11/14/2012 9:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> (Another aspect beyond capturing regular attendees, of course, is >> gaining local mindshare and relevance. > > I believe I understand the concepts that are meant by such language. But > I do not know what you mean, with respect to the IETF. I especially do > not know what you mean, in terms of the IETF's getting its work done. > > Ultimately, if the IETF does not have the mindshare among the people who > consume our work, I believe that it is better accomplished by doing work > that has more community involvement and more operational relevance. If > we do that, it won't matter where we hold our meetings. > > One argument for our going to many different places is that it makes the > IETF more 'credible' because the IETF is "seen". However I believe few > International standards groups do traveling shows like the IETF, and > they manage to be seen as credible. I wouldn't count today's "traveling shows" as "traveling". It gives the idea that the IETF goes to many places, it is not. > > In other words, I would have that our relevance is determined more by > the quality and utility of our work than by the marketing effects of > meeting venue. Agree on that. But I disagree that going to other countries outside north america is marketing. > > >> Similarly, I think the meetings >> in Prague were very useful for visibility in other central European >> countries. Hitting the focal points of economy and culture is more >> important here than a close-by airport. There *is* an -- indirect and >> more long-term -- effect of this on participation from the parts of >> the world we reach this way.) > > Again, finding meeting venues that work well for an IETF venue is quite > difficult. When we add other goals, such as marketing the IETF to the > community, we make venue selection especially difficult. > > In fact I believe, we actually wind up making the IETF more > /exclusionary/ rather than more /inclusive/ because we raise the barrier > to participation for serious participants, most notably participants > with less time and money that the average, corporate-funded attendee... Agree. But also people (and perhaps organisations, that also are serious participants) in Latin America, Africa, and some parts of Asia has less income than their counterparts in North America. Some of the people from those places do serious efforts to attend the IETF. So, are where is the exclusionary? > > Showing up in various places does not make the work better. It might > have outward marketing benefits for the image of the IETF. Historically, > the IETF has done better by worrying less about its image and more about > the utility of its work. Again, I disagree that is pure marketing. The IETF has done a great job, but it is time to evolve. Regards, as > > d/ >