On 22/04/2018 03:24, John Levine wrote: > In article <CABcZeBPGyykdDLYHViaBQA4b+icJruOsJm9HwW6ppXEco7nS5A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >> Thanks for making this point. I totally agree that where we have the >> meetings influences participation. >> This is why I explicitly mentioned Yokohama. Even when we meet in Asia >> (which is presumably the >> most favorable environment for Asian participation) we still generally get >> below 1/3 Asian attendance, >> and if we also meet other places, the overall numbers are going to be lower. > > The numbers show that when we meet in Japan, a lot more people from > Japan attend. Other than that there is no obvious pattern. I suspect that a deep dive into the raw data would show that in any given period of a few years, we have a few hundred people who attend meetings everywhere in the world, and several times that who attend meetings in or near their own region. Let's say, for the sake of argument, 500 consistent attendees and 1250 intermittent attendees. My conclusion from that is that rotating between the three regions is an excellent policy, because it enables many more people to attend than if we didn't rotate. The fact that the total number per meeting varies is an unimportant side-effect IMHO. Brian
