Hi, On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net> wrote: > I'm not quite sure the currency exchange issues are key for this discussion. > FWIW, I think you can still budget in Euros for the Berlin meeting, > but I'm only 97% sure :-) > > Anyway, I wanted to highlight that, as has been pointed out by many, just > meeting at some place makes little sense. But the question on the > table is not just that. We're asking both about the meeting and about what > other forms of getting additional participation from the region would > be useful. My personal opinion is that we need to do multiple things to make > an impact. And again IMO, meetings should be a part of that set. > But definitely not alone. I know many of you have been very willing to help > out in going out to new areas of the world to speak, gather input, > and get familiar with more people. Thank you. I certainly plan to do that as > well. >
I would like to follow up on this proposal. Having a meeting in South America scheduled two or three years in advance will let us engage local organisations and individuals on a "project". We did several activities in the region trying to encourage IETF participation, but we're going to be much more effective if they're part of a plan with a strong commitment (and effort) from the IETF community. Since this opportunity was announced, there were several contacts and proposals from different groups asking for additional information, suggesting things to do, asking for details, etc. We now have a much more fertile ground to do multiple things. > The other thing that was mentioned was political pressure to appear > international. My opinion is that doing something purely based on that > would be silly and potentially harmful. However, I think we have a situation > where we simultaneously need wider involvement from different > organisations & areas, are reaching out to new types of participants > (including, shock! even regulators in cases like PAWS), and do face > some pressures about how we are perceived. An IETF that is open, has broad > participation that is based on actual technical substance is in a > very good position to continue to be perceived as the authority it is. This > is not to say we are not already about all those things; we are. But I > think we definitely need to go even further. Going further will also enrich the IETF work and community (making it more international becomes a side effect). In this region there are many engineers, software developers, people at Universities, etc. that could provide new ideas and energy to the IETF. Christian > A few other responses: > > Randy wrote: > >> (1) "need-based" evangelism. Outreach efforts are more >> effective if they sincerely address specific needs of >> the target community. Does face-to-face participation in >> the IETF offer things practitioners in under-represented >> regions feel they need? As long as we focus on how it >> could help *us*, rather than what needs it would address >> for them, it'll be far less effective than it could be. > > > Very true. > > Melinda wrote: > >> The industry sector bias in IETF participation is >> possibly compounding the regional bias. > > > Yes. > > Jari >
