It's worth mentioning, perhaps, that the fact that the a lot of the same people get to go to IETF every time can be seen either as a bug or a feature. It's a feature in the sense that if those people do work, work gets done. It's a bug in the sense that it's likely that by optimizing for that, we are excluding people who would benefit from coming to IETF when it is in their region, but can't manage it when it is not.
Several comments in this thread have taken it as a given that making sure the same people always get to go is a priority. In fact, if those people felt a bit more disenfranchised they might be more eager to make sure that the remote attendance experience was better than it currently is.
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:40 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <MHammer@xxxxxx> wrote:
> -----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
>
>