I support the ietf-meeting in new regions, and reply as below, On 5/26/13, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The IAOC has put forward two reasons for having an IETF meeting in South > America: > >> Encouraging growing participation will help strengthen the Internet, >> further encourage participation from those areas that will see the >> most growth in the coming years, and will help advance the IETF in >> political and international circles which is becoming more of an >> imperative. Yes I agree, but think that managment SHOULD work with ALL participants (usually majority from North America) to make this successful. We will not do that only if we work together, otherwise not possible if only management work alone. > > That is: > > 1. Promoting regional participation from Latin America > > There certainly are under-represented constituencies that we should > find ways to bring to the IETF in greater numbers. Residents of Latin > America certainly qualify. > > However a number of comments on the ietf list have observed that our > conducting a single meeting in South America is unlikely to effect > greater Latin participation in the IETF. If you analyse results for short term, you are right, but these things are long term plans for future participants. We need to give South America more time to see the result, > I agree, it won't, and frankly > I think it shouldn't, because it's a expensive and possibly risky Grand > Gesture rather than a substantive change. Not sure what is expensive, do you mean expensive for IETF or for the participants. If it is for regular participants, then they may become remote for some time, for the best of IETF, which they will gain as will. > > If we want great regional participation, let's look for ways to > achieve that -- for /all/ under-represented constituencies. I suspect > that what's needed will be similar for all of them. So you ask to other way other than reducing the majority of meetings in North America. Do you mean that if we go for the way you are disagreeing it will result to reduce number of majority participants? I don't think so, as long as ALL have the IETF vesion. > > > 2. Counteracting some type of IETF 'deficiency' in political and > international circles. > > As stated, that's a pretty vague concern, although yes, we sometimes > hear criticisms around the IETF's regional choices. However the nature > of exchanges like these are -- as correctly characterized by the IAOC -- > political, and they are rarely assuaged by letting the critics dictate > organizational decision-making, such as where to send 1200 participants > for a mission-critical meeting. No one sending any participants, it is a volunteering meetings, and can be remotely attended. New communities are still need more face to face meetings than experts of IETF. > > Put simply: we shouldn't let political critics set the agenda for > IETF strategic planning. They'll just find something else to hassle us > about, since their political goal is criticizing the IETF, not improving > it. Again as others have noted, one meeting in the region won't be > enough, and then there are the other regions we don't go to, and there > will be something else, and something more after that. Yes, that is the beauty of IETF, it always changes for the best, we need to get use to change, many organisations face their staff resistance of change. Usually memebrs of organisation like things to go the way it was before. > > But wait. There's a bigger issue being missed: The basis of the > criticism is fundamentally specious! The /reality/ is that the IETF is > dramatically /more/ open in its participation and its documents than > nearly any other international standards group, most of whom have > nation- or vendor-based membership fees and restrictions, with little or > no participation via email or remote attendance. We will get more remote participants when the meetings are expensive for majority of participants. However, the number of attendance will increase, because we got remote attendance and face to face new attendance with lower costs per individuals :) > > Again, don't let political exercises determine the IETF's public > message. The solid reality of extreme IETF global inclusiveness is real > and basic. Those who want to hear that message will. Those who don't > won't be quieted by a stray meeting in the southern half of South America. > > Of course we need to do more and better at being inclusive. The > nascent diversity effort speaks to the IETF's own concern about that. > > > > As for some other points in the IAOC message... > > > On 5/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >> There has been a consistent level of IETF participation from South and >> Central >> America, and it has been growing since IETF82. The data on this is posted >> at >> >> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Regional-Attendance-00.pdf. > > From the cited table, we see that Latin American meeting attendance > grew from <1% to 2%, over a bit more than one year. However note that > it showed a marked /decrease/ in the preceding year. > > As statistical analyses goes, making a business claim of increased > attendance, based on percentages that small and with a pattern that > contradictory, is extremely risky. > > It also means 98% of attendees at the venue will /not/ be from the > region, rather than the usual 1/3 - 2/3 for our usual meeting venues. > That is, this meeting will be disproportionately out of the way for > attendees. You assume that they all will attend not remotely. The usual meeting venues has majority from same region, do you think that is a good achievment, IMHO, it is better to have 50% attendance not from the region and 50% remotely, than having 90% from same region. The 90% attendance from same region sound like politics in my understandning, I don't understand what you mean by *political excersies determining IETF*. > > > >> IETF standards are also made more robust when all perspectives >> are represented during their development. > > The IETF's primary working venue is mailing lists. Are participants > from that region having singular difficulties participating in mailing > lists? That is good that ALL should get use to participate remotely, including the 98% of IETF participants. For new regions they need to start face to face, then after that they will be well trained to have no difficultues on mailing lists. Please note that I am a remote participant and attending meetings remotely, but still there are difficulties facing me because of other issues (may be ietf politics) you may never experienced. > > There were a few notes about this on the ietf list. > > I'd summarize it as suggesting that we need more effort at making > mailing list participation easier for non-native English speakers, for > those new to IETF culture, and for those having an upbringing that is a > poor match against the IETF's gruff, aggressive debating style. But, of > course, these are general issues about the IETF that also have come up > before. And these are what we need to address. I may understood that you define IETF culture as it is the North America Culture, I disagree. The IETF culture is the world community culture that are using the Internet standards. I know that 98% participants from same region make a region-culture but that is not the 98% IETF culture. > > >> Things to consider are that it will be a long trip for the majority of >> IETFers and the >> air fares are more expensive (about 10% to 20% higher than average), >> though >> restaurants are less expensive. This would be a case where most IETFers >> would >> bear more travel pain and expense. I think that is reasonable, and that will help to increase remote participants, and increase different industries to participate. > > The cost appears to be significantly worse than that. Presumably the > referenced average is spread across current planned averages of > within-region and 'distant' region meetings, with distant regions > typically being more expensive and of course incurring longer travel > times. that will help to increase attendance of remote participants, and increase different industries to participate. > > This one to South America will be distant for 98% of attendees. So more > attendees than usual will be spending 'distant' travel money and time. We are not sure about that assumption, but I will say we need to give chance to other regions to increase participation other wise this 98% will be 100% in future, and we will never need to have other regions. The result may be that communities decide to separate-work the IETF into different regions that work separately, do we want that to happen? Do you want each region to have its own IETF meetings that have 100% of attendance (with 1% remote attendance) from same region with lowest costs. > > From the table below, a rough guess is that the incremental per-person > cost of this meeting's air travel is arguably around, US$700(!) > Multiply that by 1175 attendees -- assuming an average total of 1200. > That's an incremental community cost of roughly one million dollars. Not sure why you make it added to a million, they spend separately, so we should not add them as if they go to one company. I don't think the IETF is spending that one million. You will only add costs if ALL participants from same region work together to pay one company for the total costs, therefore, there is no dought that the costs per individual will reduce and that company will still make money. > > And travel times to Buenos Aires are much longer than all but the most > distant venues, probably adding 1/2 - 1 day each way. So attendees are > likely to be away from work and family for 1-2 days longer. > > And for those who answer the questionnaire, saying that they are likely > or very likely to go to a meeting in Buenos Aires, one issue to consider > carefully is the likelihood of management approval for these extra > costs, or at least the overall effect on your annual travel budget. The costs can be reduced if we work together not separately. However, there is no excuse as long there is possibility of remote attendance. As you mentioned we need to get use to mailing list remotely. > > Adelaide was fun, but it was not justified in terms of either of the > rationales put forward in the IAOC note. It also was a long time ago -- > the Internet has changed, the world's economies have changed, and > companies allocation of funds have changed. Yes, all changed so we also need to change, that may be the reason why IETF should go to other regions that had not much economic impacts. > > I like visiting South America. But IETF meetings do not have tourism as > a goal. So yes, I'm sure those who go will "enjoy" the city; but again, > that's not stated purpose of choosing venues. Yes tourist not a goal but IMO the goal is to meet with Internet community and encourage its new technologies growth/use. IMO we need to choose venues to meet with new regional companies/vendors/users/individuals. > > Again, yes we want greater IETF participation of all regions around the > globe, but this meeting venue won't change things. Yes, It will not change only if we don't care or we don't work with management. All 100% of participants should market the IETF standards to the world and any/every where. > > If we are serious about wanting more participation from > under-represented regions, then let's attack that issue seriously and > substantively, rather than with an expensive marketing show. It is not expensive marketing show for the IETF, it can be expensive per participant, but still that is volunteering not expense, still there is a choice to volunteer to attend remotely. However, even a meeting with minimum of 500 present-attendance is a great/enough IETF marketing per region which will give future results. > > For example, $1M/year could fund quite a lot of regional IETF outreach > -- perhaps as an extension to the existing, excellent ISOC global effort > -- and perhaps even better remote participation capabilities... Dont forget globalisation, not a region is gaining the one million it is companies, I suggested above a way to reduce the total amount of 1M/year (there are many ways) and dont agree to add them as the payments are separate to separate companies, AB