On May 30, 2013, at 2:45 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I would take those numbers with a HUGE grain of salt (as Jari documents). I appreciate Jari's effort and use his page extensively. However, I agree taht geography data should be taken with a grain of salt. In my case I created several document while living in South America but moved to Europe just before the RFC was published with my current european address. So, even if I worked on it for 3+ years from LATAM, those document show me as european. You also have to consider all the native people from one region that move to another one. My proposal to the "diversity working group" was to add a request from the RFC editor to the authors to establish the geography they would like to be associated with and add that information to the document metadata at publication time. If we want to tackle the cause of this problem and not the consequences, we need to look at the macro-economical issues mentioned by Joel. That said, I am optimistic that we will see improvements sooner than later thanks to new research/development centres been established in LATAM but these processes take time. Referring to what the impact of hosting a meeting in LATAM would have on participation, we need to consider that IETF meetings are not conference but working meeting. We get there (or online) to get work done. Presentations last only around 5-10 mins they are not marketing-sexy and they normally start with "difference from last meeting". What I want to say is that engagement needs to happen much earlier and while having a meeting in a location will always have a positive effect on local participation (as stated by Michael), we need to set expectations right. Personally, I believe we should spend more energies from now to that date working on mentoring and improving the fellowship program. I was involved in the first 3 years of the program and I recommended the creation of the "recurrent" fellows (initially fellows could only attend one meeting). Although I am still in contact with my past mentees, I think there is still room for improvement and we could think on a long-distance volunteering program. Referring to the chosen location (Buenos Aires), I think it is an excellent choice from the point of view of our traditional requirements to get job done. However, the comments about the current exchange and import limitations are relevant and should be evaluated by the IAOC when establish the current risks or running the meeting there from an operational perspective. Typical business operations such as the possibility of charging local sponsorships or local attendees in USD, been able to wire the hotel IETF fees back to the US in USD (and at a reasonable exchange rate) or importing devices to run the meeting should not be taking for granted but should be discussed with our local contact. Roque > For example, I've lived in Australia since 2006, and yet am only listed as producing RFCs in the USA. > > Regards, > > > On 30/05/2013, at 10:39 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi Lars, >> >> It was for Asia region, I thought its rate is between (5 - 50) >> rfc/year for last 3 years. Basing on; The first figure of RFCs is the >> Comparison of countries over the year [1], the second, is the >> Distribution of number of RFCs per continent [2], the third is >> publication rate per year [3]. For the I-Ds going in IETF is seen from >> the distribution of drafts according to the countries of their authors >> [4] and [5]. All figures make together the below conclusions, even >> though some of them need more details for readers to understand. >> >> As from Figure [1] always one region (North America) is doing about >> 200 rfc/year and the each of others may do between 5 - 50 rfc/year or >> 50-100, but all together other regions do 150 rfc/year, so total >> ietf-participation can be about 350 rfc/year. The Figure [2] is not >> reasonable, not showing of years or period of such numbers. >> >> So my understanding is that for Europe-region and Asia-region, the >> number of I-Ds rates are high compared to North America, but not the >> rate of RFCs. I see that the total RFCs ietf-output rate (RFC/year) as >> in Figure [3] for the last three years is about 350 rfc/year, so if >> North America is having 200, the all others only will have about 150 >> rfc/year. The total RFCs produced per countries is in Figure [6] is >> reasonable but if compared with Figure [2] I get lost. >> >> From Figure [5] (also [4]) the number of I-Ds (now currently 2013 >> outstanding) from Asia and Europe are about 600 and 1200 respectively >> (let us add them up so =1800 ids), which I think only about 150 will >> succeed (non-North America drafts). Furthermore, for North America the >> I-Ds are 1500 ids and only 200 ids will succeed to become RFCs. I >> think that Asia and Europe should have together about 250/year rfc not >> 150 rfc/year. If we do more MARKETING effort we can make that rfc-rate >> of other regions increase, but we already tried to increase North >> America rate but it is stable for about 200 rfc/years. >> >> [1] http://www.arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/countrydistrhist.html >> [2] http://www.arkko.com/tools/recrfcstats/d-contdistr.html >> [3] http://arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/pubdistr.html >> [4] http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-countrydistr.html >> [5] http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/d-countryeudistr.html >> [6] http://www.arkko.com/tools/rfcstats/d-countrydistr.html >> >> This lower participation from regions like Asia will continue because >> most meeting are in North America, or most participants from North >> America prefer to have face-face meeting locally, than to be remote to >> other regions (not reasonable because they are writers in English very >> well). Also other regions participants prefer to participate in >> meetings not remotely (but that is reasonable because they are not >> good in English Language Writting). It is also important that some >> IETF management visit the other region participants for the progress >> of their I-Ds. >> >> Please note that I don't claim that my analysis is all correct, but >> trying to discuss it and get others to analyse as well or comment on >> the figures/statistics. If you disagree or have any comment please >> reply/advise. Thanking you, >> >> AB >> >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On May 28, 2013, at 19:46, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> by looking into the statistics of I-Ds and RFCs, it is strange that we get >>>> sometimes high rate in the I-D going in IETF from some regions but the >>>> success rate of I-Ds to become RFCs is very low (5- 50). >>> >>> which IDs and RFCs are you basing this statement on? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Lars > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>