Dave, > These numbers probably need to be correlated with the venue of each meeting. > One would expect higher Asian attendance at an Asian venue, and so forth. > Controlling for venue could produce a very different interpretation of the > numbers.
I think that shows up clearly in the numbers. > > More substantively I heard someone ask a particularly useful question that > is, unfortunately, challenging to answer: Namely, what is the distribution > among the folks who are doing primary work. That is, what is the > distribution among IETF management, working group chairs and authors? (There > are serious workers who are not among this set and should also be counted, > but I've no idea how to label and include them in this subset analysis.) > > Meetings are subject to a substantial spike in local attendance. These folk > are, of course, quite welcome, but they typically do not contribute much to > the > actual work of the IETF. > > Because the primary goal of an IETF meeting is to get work done, knowing the > distribution of workers might inform efforts to choose venues. A question for you. Should we select meeting venues to minimize the cost/time/etc. of all attendees or just, for example, w.g. chairs? Many people have suggested that the IAOC should be looking at overall attendee costs, but there might be a difference in what group we try to optimize. Personally, I lean toward more openness and would prefer to do optimize for all attendees. > > To my knowledge, nothing is recorded that makes this analysis straightforward. > > My impression is that perhaps 1/4-1/3 of the attendees are long-term IETF > workers who will go anywhere, with perhaps 1/3-1/2 being much more recent > repeat attendees. Attending multiple meetings is a good indicator of some > involvement -- since that's the criterion for Nomcom participation -- but > it's probably only a moderate predictor As an experiment, I just did some averaging of the data to try to remove the local effect. I removed the attendance number for local attendees. That is, if the meeting was in Europe, I removed the Europe attendance number. Then I averaged over the past three meetings and for the whole series. My thinking was that the non-local attendees are probably the core IETF attendees. It should remove the local effect. For the past three meetings it was: Africa 1% Asia 30% Europe 26% North America 41% Australia 2% South America 1% For all of the meetings it was a little different (higher % in NA, less in Asia, about the same in Europe). I not sure it is as valid since there was only one meeting in Asia and many in North America. PDF below with the numbers. Bob
AttendanceByContinent.xlsb.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
