Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/22/2016 2:04 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Allow me to suggest that avoiding disadvantaging people who do not
actually participate might be somewhat lower priority than avoiding
disadvantaging those who do.

+10

The model which asserts that choosing meeting venues is a way to recruit participants has no objective basis -- and that's after 30 years of opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. It frankly serves to work against the basic goal of having most work done on mailing lists, by selling a cultural view that meetings are primary.

Anyone who wants to participate in the IETF already can. All they need is an Internet connection. It doesn't even have to be a good one, since IETF list mail only consumes extremely low bandwidth and is an asynchronous form of use.

F2F meetings permit /added/ efficiency for those who are /already/ participating.

Moving the venue is /not/ for permitting attendance by those who otherwise can't attend, but (is supposed to be) to share the pain among those who do attend.

The outreach goal cited for some venue choices is well-intentioned but unfortunately misguided and probably counter-productive to the IETF's main work.



On 5/23/2016 7:01 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I only wish that was true. While we try to go back to venues that
have worked well, they are often not available on the dates when we
want to meet.

While that is sometimes the case, of course, it is not the primary reason we keep seeking new venues (independent of the occasional social outreach experiment.)

The primary reason we vary the cities so much is to try to get sponsors and hosts.


d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]