Rich Kulawiec <rsk@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:57:53AM -0400, chopps@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Your suggestion of not having them would subtract value from the process >> though. I don't see the win. > > The win is that all of the time and effort and expense (all of which > are finite resources) that go into those could be directed elsewhere. The meetings and their fees are income positive, they aren't a drain on resource, the opposite in fact. > These meetings select for a highly limited (by circumstance, by necessity, > and by choice) subset. And once upon a time, when the 'net was much > younger and more limited in terms of geography and scope, that might > have been alright, because the subset mapped fairly well onto the larger > set of people involved in networking. But that's no longer true. > And the difficulties/expense of travel are only going to get worse > for the forseeable future: they're not going to get better. I think it would be useful to get some real data to measure exactly how highly limited that subset of people are. Perhaps as a simple first shot we could take email sent to IETF working group mailing lists over the last year, and cross reference that against the registrations lists of the last 3 IETFs and see what percentage of people doing IETF work cannot or choose not to attend the on-site meetings? Thanks, Chris. > > ---rsk
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature