On 2010-08-08 03:11, Doug Ewell wrote: > Marshall Eubanks <tme at americafree dot tv> wrote: > >> We do have some data on this point - the day pass experiment (DPE) has >> shown pretty conclusively IMO that the IETF does not get a lot of >> truly local ad-hoc participants. Most day pass attendees appear to be >> regular attendees who could only make it to that particular IETF for >> one day for whatever reason, not local people who just wanted to >> sample an IETF meeting. >> >> It has long been known that IETF meetings have a local attendance >> effect. I thought, before the DPE, that this indicated a potentially >> large number of observers, presumably interested, but not interested >> enough to travel long distances due to the cost and time required for >> longer trips. This, to me, suggested that day-passes, at a reduced >> rate, would bring out a lot of new people (as the time and financial >> burden would be even less). This did not happen, on any of the 3 >> continents where the DPE has been run. > > At least on the surface, this does make it appear that the decision to > exclude day-pass attendees from NomCom, on the basis that such attendees > would not have the requisite experience, is driven by financial > considerations after all.
Not at all. Firstly, it's only now that there are even marginally enough data to analyse the impact of day passes - previously, all we had was guesswork. Secondly, the argument is quite clear - people who parachute into an IETF week for one day, for whatever reason, cannot possibly gain the experience of a full week's participation (for example, witness the breadth and depth of an AD's work, or properly understand the interaction of WG meetings, BOFs, Bar BOFs and corridor discussions). That undermines the whole purpose of measuring meeting attendance as a Nomcom qualification. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
