--On Sunday, May 22, 2016 10:04 -0800 Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/22/16 10:02 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Sorry- but there is no doubt that f2f meetings are high >> bandwidth compared to any electronic form of communication. >> And I'm saying that if we're going to have them we have a >> choice of who we disadvantage, for surely we will >> disadvantage someone. This discussion is about how that >> choice is made. > Allow me to suggest that avoiding disadvantaging people who do > not actually participate might be somewhat lower priority than > avoiding disadvantaging those who do. Hi. FWIW, I'm in complete agreement with Melinda on this, but let me suggest that there can sensibly be three categories rather than a dichotomy: (1) Those who are actively participating, involving both mailing list and at least occasional or historical f2f activity. (2) Those who are not attending f2f but who have shown clear participation and contributions on mailing lists (and, if there is any "etc.", etc.). (3) Those whom the IETF hopes to recruit into active participation, including those who live in places where we don't meet very often but who haven't discovered mailing list participation, those who have or might attend a meeting if it is held near to them, and those brought in on one-time "gee, look at the IETF" activities by ISOC or others. If any of those people follow up their visits by active participation in technical work, they become part of the second category. I suggest that it is entirely reasonable to consider the needs, locations, economics, etc., of the second group on a par with the first but that we get ourselves into trouble if we make decisions that put either of the first two groups at a disadvantage to benefit the third group. For that third group, future active involvement is, at best, highly speculative at best. With no disrespect to anyone, if the perspective above is worth anything, statistics about how many people showed up in Buenos Aires (or Honolulu, or...) who had not attended IETF before are almost useless. Statistics showing how many of those groups are now actively participating in one or more WG are, by contrast, of significant interest, especially wrt meeting planning based on principles like "go where the participants are" or "average out travel costs". best, john