> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John C Klensin > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 7:32 PM > To: Joel M. Halpern; Fernando Gont > Cc: recentattendees@xxxxxxxx; Ietf@Ietf. Org > Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF > 100 > > > > --On Saturday, May 28, 2016 2:34 PM -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" > <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Fernando, > > Your response assumes that it is proven that moving to > > less-participating locations increases long term participation from > > those locales. There are also indications from other data that it is > > not particularly effective. Thus, while your view is a reasonable > > hypothesis, it will take time and measurements to confirm it. > > Let me take Joel's observation about the particular BA experiment a bit > further. If, independent of who showed up at that meeting, it isn't followed > by a significant spike in long-term IETF participation and contributions from > the region, I think people who say "go there in spite of the fact that there > hasn't been a lot of participation from the region because participation will > increase" are going to have a very hard time making that case... for either a > return to Latin America or for any other region. > I think it is unreasonable to set the bar at MUST have long term significant spike in participation from a region after a single meeting being held there. Without taking a position on whether meetings should be held in particular locations, if the goal is to garner participation from a wider geographic constituency then IETF needs to plan and invest to make that happen beyond simply holding a single meeting in the region. > > I do note that many of our regular participants found BA to be > > simply too much (by whatever measures they use) and chose not to come. > > That is an observed cost that also must be factored in. > > That drop in attendance, and overall lower attendance, are significant for > other reasons, but, at least to me, further raise the bar for "going to this new > place will help the IETF" > arguments. > That is a different but related discussion. > > Also note that we did chose to conduct the experiment. > > So I think your comparison is quite a ways off the mark. > > Indeed. > > john > >