Mike, Just to be clear, the highest priority in venue selection is to find a venue where we can have a successful meeting. We won't go anywhere were we don't think we can get the work done. This discussion is where to have a meeting, but not at the expense of the work itself.
Bob On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > Fred said this much more eloquently than I could. > > On the IETF78 attendees list there's been a lot of discussion about where to > meet - with the primary consideration seeming to be "pretty and small". I > may be in the minority, but I'd really rather the IETF go places where the > ability to "get work done" is the primary consideration. > > So going forward, I hope the considerations for location will give higher > weight to meeting the needs of the folks doing the work (my second list of > folk) and the folks who keep coming back (the first list) than to the single > meeting snap shots. Its possible the demographics for my two lists are > similar to the raw demographics so my point may be moot - but why guess when > we have the data? > > Mike > > > > At 12:34 AM 8/7/2010, Fred Baker wrote: > >> On Aug 7, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: >> >>> I do note that it seems clear that registration is related to where we >>> meet. That show up pretty clearly the current data. So judging where to >>> have future meetings based on past participation will tend to keep us where >>> we used to meet. Nomcom is, as you point out, 3 of 5 meetings. WG chair >>> and authors might have a longer history. >> >> I agree with the "openness" principle, but I disagree with this analysis. >> >> "3..5" is another way of saying "people that attend multiple times". As >> noted by others, first-time attendees (who by definition haven't attended >> anywhere else and therefore give us no guidance) and local-only attendees >> (which is unknowable but demonstrably a component) aren't very interesting. >> What is interesting is trying to serve people that participate. We went to >> Adelaide on the observation that we had IETF participation from there and a >> proposed host (which was also why Adelaide was chosen over, say, Sydney) at >> a time that we had never been to Australia. We went to Amsterdam, Stockholm, >> and so on on the observation that we had significant European participation >> and proposed hosts. We went to Japan when Japanese participation became >> important, and we're going to China in November largely in response to the >> fact of credible levels of Chinese participation. So observing participation >> doesn't limit us to where we have been, it extends us in the direction of >> those who par tic >> ipate. >> >> Looking at people who have attended multiple meetings, and using the nomcom >> rubric, make sense to me more than worrying about first-time and local-only >> attendees. I would take it on faith that we will have the latter wherever >> we go, and build on those that return. >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
