Carsten, et al,
On 11/14/2012 11:08 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
My comment was not about getting work done, but about impact of this
work.
OK. So the choice of venue is supposed to serve two goals:
* Being useful for the workers developing IETF documents.
* Promoting that work to (potential) consumers of it.
The first bullet is the operational one of choosing venues that are
convenient and useful for attendees doing the work. It's important to
note that it is difficult to service this one requirement. Adding more
increases the challenges and risks.
Concerning the second bullet an example would be that by showing up in
South America, we will get more use of IETF work in South America. Or
is the view broader that our showing up in SA, we will get more use
elsewhere also?
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.
And I was pointing out that this isn't true. It may not matter nearly
as much as the quality of the work, but there is an effect.
The second bullet is about marketing the IETF brand. Your position is
that we will have better use of IETF output if we choose locations to
increase awareness, mindshare, and the like. The importance of brand
awareness is well established in marketing. The question is how much
the particular choice of venue affects IETF brand awareness.
In terms of marketing theory, your premise is reasonable.
Unfortunately, many marketing theories are reasonable but wrong.
So what I do not understand is its empirical basis for the specific case
of the IETF.
The fact that we have been wandering around the globe for 20 years ought
to have provided us with that empirical basis. In addition, we should
be able to compare our own history with that of standards groups that do
/not/ wander around, or who wander less than we do, and we should see a
history of better mindshare and better uptake of work for the IETF.
As popular as IETF work is, I don't see that less 'mobile' standards
groups are suffering by comparison. Or, at least, not due to their
being less mobile.
To the extent that one disagrees with my assertion, I'll claim that any
differences in mindshare are readily explained by the quality or
relevance of the work, not the choice of meeting venue.
In other words, I appreciate your firm "this isn't true" but ask you to
substantiate it empirically. Otherwise, we are making an expensive,
risky, strategic decision based on an unfounded belief. It's a popular
belief, I admit, but that doesn't make it valid.
Increasing visibility and mindshare, in particular at level 9, can
very much help enabling involvement.
So the fact that we haven't been showing up in South America or Africa
or the Middle East should mean that the IETF's work has less mindshare
there and less adoption, especially compared with other standards groups
that do go to those regions.
Another example of an empirical test could be that that folk from such
venues, who have shown up on our many mailing lists, choose not to
continue working with the IETF because we don't go to their countries.
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.
I certainly subscribe to that.
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.
Again, you are trying to argue against my point by saying your point
is more important. That is certainly so, but doesn't make my point
wrong or irrelevant.
I'm saying that your point lacks an empirical basis and, worse, that it
can hurt the primary requirement for meeting venues.
There is a very real and cost to your point and only a theoretical
benefit. The real cost is that it increases the aggregate
/in/convenience to /existing/ IETF workers and it /increases/ the
barrier to participation for people from the regions that are already
supplying workers.
Our current model is to distribute the travel pain. One time, more
convenient for North Americans. Another time, more convenient for
Eastern Asians. That is, the goal is fairness among current workers.
The choice of the 3 regions we vary among has been based on actual
participation. We increased the desired proportion of meetings in East
Asia as we saw a strong trend of increased participation from that
region. This was a /reactive/, not /proactive/, change. (Our failure
to maintain the model has been due to logistical problems, not a change
in the model.)
To the extent that going elsewhere increases the pain, cost, operational
risk, or the like for current workers, this theoretical marketing
benefit hurts actual work.
Showing up in venues that already supply participants to IETF work also
lowers the barrier for existing IETF workers who have less time and
money for attending. Note that the core of the IETF is workers with
rather plush corporate funding and a pattern of extensive travel. That
creates an insensitivity to folk with more limited budget or time.
Practically speaking, e.g., if we can get a reasonable venue in
Brazil or in a Spanish-speaking country, we should go there.
And my point is that you are not speaking practically. Your are
speaking reasonably but entirely theoretically, absent an empirical basis.
And one of the hallmarks of behavioral analysis -- of which marketing is
a sub-specialty -- most assertions of cause/effect turn out to be wrong,
when actually tested.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net