On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 9:28 AM Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 8, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08/04/2019 22:59, Keith Moore wrote:80% seems like a high threshold, probably more indicative of "is paid toI'm not that fussed myself about these numbers (though a
work as a standards-body 'goer'" than "true believer".
Given the variety of locations in which IETF meets. it can be hard for
anyone to get to 80% of them.  But I'd be curious about how many
attendees get to one out of three meetings, and how many get to two out
of three. Or maybe just a bar graph of how many attendees attended 1,
2, 3, ... N out of the last N meetings?
decline in regular attendees, if real, is interesting).
But, if someone does put in effort here, please do count
and publish the numbers who are nomcom-eligible. If that
number is changing, then it'd be good for the community
to know.We actually had that in the graph the secretariat originally produced, but took it out for the plenary slide since I didn’t want to overload people with information for a slide that wasn’t going to be on the screen very long. You can see it here: https://datastudio.google.com/reporting/1QceS5g7XvELBUObRDIApjxjZg2a08plH/page/YHqZ?s=veSmL7Dy01g
That's helpful and shows there isn't much change. I'm wondering if 2/3 meetings is a good metric to follow with it being reasonable to not travel to the meeting furthest from home since we have remote access tools. Yes, it's hard to be up when everyone else is sleeping being the major challenge that some travel instead for that reason.
Best,
Kathleen
Best,Alissa
Thanks,
S.<0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
Keith
Best regards,
Kathleen
