Jay, On 20-Apr-20 08:27, Jay Daley wrote: > > >> On 20/04/2020, at 8:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> On 20-Apr-20 08:00, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> >>> Note that if they had simply said "we know the July meeting will be >>> remote", a (presumably different) set of people would have complained >>> about "how did you decide that?" >> >> Correct. However, a doodle poll sent to recent attendees with three options: >> >> Will you travel to IETF108 if the meeting is on? Yes/Maybe/No >> >> might be revealing. > > I doubt it very much because the response is not meaningful data. Even if the options were Yes/Probably Yes/Don’t know/Probably No/No then people can still only answer for how they feel about it today and not their actual intentions in July. IMHO most people take their decision at least 2 months in advance. This may not be visible to the Secretariat or the hotels, because it's a decision to start getting travel approval, or to request a travel quote. So I think that an anonymous poll in early May would in fact be meaningful. However, I have no problem with the kind of assessment that you're planning. > I imagine that just about everyone will say Probably No/Maybe and as we get closer that decision will firm up into a Yes or No, meaning that we need to run the same poll weekly and by the time that has firmed up we will have left it too late to plan properly. > > Also it doesn’t help at all with the mixed case where say 60% say Yes and 40% say No - as the IESG explained for 107, we can’t just decide on the viability of a meeting on absolute numbers because it depends on how that translates into individual working groups and their viability. That depends on where the number sits on the scale from 1 to 1000, but I take the point. Brian
