> On Apr 20, 2016, at 6:48 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good with > regard to measuring impact. > > If we see a large cohort of first-time Buenos Aires attendees show up at > later meetings (Berlin being the first chance for them to show), we have > a strong signal that they thought it was worth it, and likely that > having the meeting in BA helped the community by helping recruit them. > Case closed (apart from some corner case possibilities I'm sure we, > being engineers, can all imagine). > > If we don't see such a cohort, we need to dig deeper. Or perhaps wonder why we should concern ourselves with this at all? tom > > Let's do the obvious measurements. They're not useless just because they > don't show everything. > >> On 04/19/2016 08:56 PM, Vinayak Hegde 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 >