You're right, I failed to account for remote participation. In principal, however, the IAD can account for this too, both by looking at remote attendance, assuming that we start collecting better statistics, and by looking at participation on mailing lists and in the writing and reviewing of drafts. All of this data is available.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It should be pretty easy for the IAD to measure this by comparing the list
> of newcomers in Argentina to the list of participants in Berlin, for
> example. I am fairly sure that they already do this, and possibly may even
> have made presentations about it from time to time at the plenary... :)
Hi Ted,
I am not picking on you but this idea is flawed at many levels.
Fundamentally we need to answer
1. What does a (meaningful ?) contribution mean ?
2. How does that relate to active participation ? Are there thresholds
or is it a continuum ? Does I mean writing a draft or is reviewing
drafts, taking minutes and hacking on code to check real world
implementation good enough.
The answers are more nuanced and varied than one might guess at first
glance. At IETF 95 in BA several long-time contributors participated
remotely. I am sure that they would take offense to this idea if they
have contributed remotely and on the mailing lists.
Just to emphasize, several WG chairs also do not attend every meeting.
Are they active ? I think there needs to be less emphasis on physical
meetings overall (FWIW I think we are already moving in that direction
quite rapidly. But at the same time F2F interaction cannot be done
away with completely IMHO and is also not going away.)
-- Vinayak