Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: On 9/7/2010 5:41 PM, Ross Callon wrote: It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do work in the IETF without being physically present at meetings, as well... A significant amount of IETF meeting participants that have their expenses sponsored by their employer might need to have this notion upheld, or they get difficulties getting their f2f participation approved. This might be particularly important for those participants that do not make any presentations on an IETF meeting. Face-to-face is quite helpful for forming an effort, since it creates a connection among the group, and it is quite helpful for resolving specific problems. That is, it is good for personal connection and rapid interaction. The effect is similar to team-building events for teams of ones workplace. Getting to know other team members and talk to them about other things than some potentially controversial technical issue helps in figuring out that a different opinion is in fact, a mere technical, rather than a personal issue when there are competing proposals or differing opinions. Especially for newcomers, it might significantly improve the level of the discussion to get to know other WG participants over lunch, dinner, IETF social or other occasions before getting into technical squabbles on the mailing list. The key to making this work is that the people who are at the F2F meeting have to take steps to facilitate remote participation. This includes, but is not limited to: (0) Having meeting materials available well in advance, no winging it at meeting time. (1) Proper use of microphones. (2) Serious attention paid to Jabber during meetings. (3) Timely postings to the mailing list. I have been participating remotely in two WGs (cat/kitten and Kerberos) remotely for ~10 years and it worked remarkably well thanks to the efforts of the WG chairs and WG contributors participating the IETF Meeting. The audiocast seems to work OK for pretty much all IETF WGs, but the interactive remote participation through jabber depends significantly on WG chair and other participants attention -- and seems to be not used and likely ignored by a number of WGs. In general, I believe that remote participation of IETF WGs entirely through the WG mailing list is possible, but participating at least some IETF meetings goes a long way getting to know the IETF and some folks in personal, which might ease some of the technical discussions in the long run. -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 9/7/2010 5:41 PM, Ross Callon wrote: It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do work in the IETF without being physically present at meetings, as well... I think that this has been true since the first IETF (at least if you replace the word increasingly with the word very). Face-to-face is quite helpful for forming an effort, since it creates a connection among the group, and it is quite helpful for resolving specific problems. That is, it is good for personal connection and rapid interaction. For a group with real focus and a strong sense of purpose, face to face is /not/ all that important for general document development and revision, absent particular points of impasse. So the 'very' Ross cites has always been true, but in constrained ways. Useful documents can be developed with /no/ face-to-face interactions. Useless documents are often developed with /primarily/ face-to-face interactions. Neither mode has a guaranteed outcome. IMO, the tendency to move more towards doing work in f2f meetings seems primarily to indicate a lack of urgency, process management and/or technical focus, rather than on an actual need. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 9/7/2010 2:50 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: Dave and I don't always agree :-) I don't think we've got either the database of people not attending because of costs nor a good model for factoring them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's Well, we agree on this. But I class this as a failure or at least a problem, rather than something to accept. We have good data on past attendees. From that we can probably build a pretty good model on what each past attendees Pa (percentage chance of This is called selling to the installed base. It's important to pay attention to the installed base of participants, but it is death for an organization to pay attention /only/ to that base. It's form of incest, and really destroys the adaptive DNA of the organization. Withers on the vine, loses touch with reality, etc. etc. Let's stick with solid data rather than try and resolve the hypotheticals - I doubt the latter is possible in any meaningful way. My point is that we need to reach out empirically, to get input from potential attendees, not just from guaranteed attendees. The fact that there is some challenge in identifying and contacting these new folk does not make it less important that we do it. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 9/7/10 6:13 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: Michael == Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net writes: Michael I don't think we've got either the database of people not Michael attending because of costs nor a good model for factoring Michael them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times some percentage who Do we at least have a list of people who attended remotely? (I don't think so) we can tell you that the peak concurrence of remote attendees on the audio is an order of magnitude smaller than the actual concurrence (e.g. typical peak is around 100 conccurent remote listeners). vs ~1200 attendees and 750-800 simultaneous radio associations during a busy meeting window. total remote attendees over the course of the week is probably higher, but that data is a lot more ambiguous since users probably have more than one ip address and potentially more than one user-agent over that time frame. data collected by the streaming servers isn't any more specific than that. No, but we could make proxy lists (for example, people who have authored a RFC, but not attended any meetings, in the last N years, or people who only attend meetings in their home region, etc.). That shouldn't be too hard to do. Marshall -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 8 sep 2010, at 3:13, Marshall Eubanks wrote: or people who only attend meetings in their home region, Am I imagining things or are more and more American attendees foregoing meetings outside North America? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Joel == Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com writes: Michael I don't think we've got either the database of people not Michael attending because of costs nor a good model for factoring Michael them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times some percentage who Do we at least have a list of people who attended remotely? (I don't think so) Joel we can tell you that the peak concurrence of remote attendees Joel on the audio is an order of magnitude smaller than the actual Joel concurrence (e.g. typical peak is around 100 conccurent Joel remote listeners). vs ~1200 attendees and 750-800 simultaneous Joel radio associations during a busy meeting window. Joel total remote attendees over the course of the week is probably Joel higher, but that data is a lot more ambiguous since users Joel probably have more than one ip address and potentially more Joel than one user-agent over that time frame. I'll bet the number of dynamic IP addresses amoung IETF remote attendees is very small :-) One could look at coordinating the voice session with any simultaneous login to the datatracker. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 9/7/10 1:55 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: On Sep 7, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On 9/3/10 3:45 PM, Hascall Sharp wrote: Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is required in order to participate effectively in the work. We have the same number as when I started attending around ietf 37. It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do work in the IETF without being physically present at meetings, as well. The audio streaming has gotten really excellent but that's one-way - there's far less The IAD bought new equipment for japan, net netbooks went a long way towards improving the sound quality over the old imbedded systems kit. support for Jabber participation (possibly as a result of the great audio), and for providing input from remote locations. There also seems to be a cultural shift and expectations have changed. There was one session at the last meeting in which the chairs asked for volunteers to do work between that meeting and the next one, but only from people who were actually present in the meeting room at the time. It's also more common to take votes and then announce the results on mailing lists. As a working group chair with a lot of if not mostly remote particaptions I went out on my way to make sure that those who could not attend had their views represented in opsec. That said, having only run three two hour meetings a year, as I've done that activity, the too many things going on in the cockpit problem is pronounced. Tracking and engaging on the remote side while running the meeting is a lot to do even with to chairs... the webex was a interesting experiment, and It makes the virtual interim more productive but it's a lot to manage while you're doing everything else. It could be that chairs need more training or it could be that there's a broader cultural shift, but my perception, as someone who's both been to a lot of meetings and done a lot of remote participation, is the same as Chip's. (My answer is probably different; I think that if this is the way IETF participants prefer things, it should be institutionalized rather than papered over). Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 9/8/10 9:48 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: Joel == Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com writes: Michael I don't think we've got either the database of people not Michael attending because of costs nor a good model for factoring Michael them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times some percentage who Do we at least have a list of people who attended remotely? (I don't think so) Joel we can tell you that the peak concurrence of remote attendees Joel on the audio is an order of magnitude smaller than the actual Joel concurrence (e.g. typical peak is around 100 conccurent Joel remote listeners). vs ~1200 attendees and 750-800 simultaneous Joel radio associations during a busy meeting window. Joel total remote attendees over the course of the week is probably Joel higher, but that data is a lot more ambiguous since users Joel probably have more than one ip address and potentially more Joel than one user-agent over that time frame. I'll bet the number of dynamic IP addresses amoung IETF remote attendees is very small :-) actually I think you'd be wrong, you don't have to be time shifted by very much to switch from streaming in the office to streaming at home, and then you get laptops versus desktops. if you sit in one location the whole time then yeah the external ip address on your nat box is probably stable. One could look at coordinating the voice session with any simultaneous login to the datatracker. It has been our practice to minimize the amount of date we collect, and not associate it with other datasets that would result in being able to uniquely identify individuals. 2 months worth of hand-wringing discussion on the IETF list suggests that we were justified in exercising our fiduciary responsibility in that fashion. listener's can't contribute to the discourse except through some other channel and don't sign the bluesheets. and since there's an archive however poor it is they may well be timeshifted by days, hours, or years. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/06/2010 09:06 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: People from Europe, Japan, Australia, and some other countries don't need a visa at all to go to an IETF meeting in the US. People from China, India and the other countries are generally backed by employers, who can vouch for their travelling on business, and generally should not have any trouble obtaining the US visa. This is becoming less and less true, with the US stacking new requirements on the visa waiver program all the time. Mandatory fingerprinting and mugshot on each visit, having to request ESTA permission beforehand, and having to pay for that privilege almost makes getting a real visa just as easy. Also, they do in fact deny waivers sometimes, and once that has happened you do need a visa for each visit (anecdotal information disclaimer: this has happened to me, and I missed Anaheim because of it. Oh and it is definitely not a fun experience). Another fun fact to keep in mind if visas are a part of the location decision is that if you need a visa to enter the USA, you also need one if you have a transfer in the USA, for instance to fly on to south america or canada. I would go so far as to say that getting a US visa seems easier than getting one to China. Who are the people for whom it's easier to visit a European country than it is to visit the US? This is certainly not true. Getting a visa for china was a breeze for me. Of course not needing one would be much better. On balance, I think US venues are generally better suited, and lead to less angst than either European or Asian venues. Even if they're in a cold place like Minneapolis. I disagree, but that may not count since I'm European :) Jelte -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkyF7/sACgkQ4nZCKsdOncXrmwCgrw51tkWeLDG9CeEIjGgZ1ISA EaYAoMwWSr1ZiAquhYynaup4n2azABKs =tdDH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 8/30/10 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: ...snip... Am I missing something? ...snip... Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is required in order to participate effectively in the work. It seems to me that IETF is going in the wrong direction in terms of meetings. But maybe I'm getting old and cranky and everyone else has an ever expanding travel budget. chip ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 8/30/2010 1:05 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: Also big corporations do have limited budget for IETF participation, For most self-funded participants, the difference between their budget for travel and the budget a corporation provides is massive. For example, the IETF main conference hotel is typically far above what they can afford. On 8/30/2010 1:10 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: There's already bias in the population of meeting attendees - do you, and, if so, how do you account for people who are already not attending because of costs? Yes! This is exactly the point I keep raising, about sampling error. We need to make sure that our analyses are with respect to the population (the full set of potential attendees) that we have in mind, rather than just a core of folk who usually attend. A theoretical analysis of fair costs doesn't query real people, so sampling is not an issue. But the second we start surveying, we need to consider folks not on the ietf@ or ietf-attendees@ lists. On 8/31/2010 4:09 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: One place that sucks for everybody has the great advantage of reducing the stress associated with travel. A lot of people were stressed about the various ways of getting to Maastricht, and a lot more are stressed about getting to Beijing (what with various kinds of visas, hotels and taxi drivers who don't speak any language other than Chinese) If we standardize on one place, then by your second meeting, you know everything about the place, and people can cutpaste their complaints from the previous meeting. And to the extent that having only one place is not politically acceptable, having a very small number of places provides the same benefit, quickly.[1] On 8/30/2010 4:13 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote: 1. First, the location _is_ a significant barrier to entry for newcomers and other contributors. Optimizing only for the current status quo does create a strong perpetual cycle of self reinforcing structure of contributors from the favored location(s). Nicely stated. d/ [1] A point was raised earlier that staying with a single venue for a long time leads to deteriorated performance, for a variety of reasons. The way to mitigate against that is to limit how long the contract is for and pursue competitive bidding regularly. One of the advantages of major hub cities is that they have quite a bit of competition among potential meeting venues. While changing hotels means learning its quirks, this is not the same as changing cities. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 9/3/10 3:45 PM, Hascall Sharp wrote: On 8/30/10 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: ...snip... Am I missing something? ...snip... Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is required in order to participate effectively in the work. We have the same number as when I started attending around ietf 37. It seems to me that IETF is going in the wrong direction in terms of meetings. We have more working groups having online virtual interims, the workplace of reference for virtually all working groups remains the mailing list, that I think is demonstrative of the opposite. But maybe I'm getting old and cranky and everyone else has an ever expanding travel budget. not likely. chip ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
At 05:45 PM 9/3/2010, Hascall Sharp wrote: On 8/30/10 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: ...snip... Am I missing something? ...snip... Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is required in order to participate effectively in the work. Creating the ability to mimic or replicate the effectiveness of a WG meeting is only part of the benefit of attendance at an IETF. Many of us that have been going there for years and years have the benefit of chance/rendezvous meetings in the hallway to discuss a topic - that we didn't know was being discussed, or - that we may now find ourselves in the middle of, or - that a small group might want to have outside of the main discussion area/session, or - etc Many of us have lots of ideas bantering around in our heads between meetings (or that have been dormant for a while) that this type of chance meeting could generate something of a meeting-of-the-minds about starting something new or something different that how it's done now. Many newcomers - whether this is their actual first meeting or just in their first few meetings - actively or passively seek out certain individuals for the possibility of having such a planned chance meeting in a hallway. None of this can effectively be done with IETF meetings moving to webex or worse, only on email. That said - I fully understand the financial burdens on people or corporations during non-robust years of economic (non) growth, such as we're in the middle of. JMO, which could be wrong James It seems to me that IETF is going in the wrong direction in terms of meetings. But maybe I'm getting old and cranky and everyone else has an ever expanding travel budget. chip ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
For various reasons, I have participated in the last 3 meetings remotely. While I am very grateful for the technical tools (streaming audio, jabber room, etc.) that make such remote participation possible, it is in no way a substitute for the greater level of interaction I get when attending the meeting in person. Furthermore, I am willing to get up a 3 AM (my time) to attend a WG in which I already have an active interest. But I am less likely to get up at 3 AM for a WG that sounds as if it MIGHT be interesting. When I am there in person, I am more likely to go to that MIGHT be interesting meeting. Janet This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. From: James M. Polk jmp...@cisco.com To: Hascall Sharp chsh...@cisco.com, ietf@ietf.org, o...@nlnetlabs.nl Date: 09/07/2010 04:47 PM Subject: Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent At 05:45 PM 9/3/2010, Hascall Sharp wrote: On 8/30/10 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: ...snip... Am I missing something? ...snip... Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is required in order to participate effectively in the work. Creating the ability to mimic or replicate the effectiveness of a WG meeting is only part of the benefit of attendance at an IETF. Many of us that have been going there for years and years have the benefit of chance/rendezvous meetings in the hallway to discuss a topic - that we didn't know was being discussed, or - that we may now find ourselves in the middle of, or - that a small group might want to have outside of the main discussion area/session, or - etc Many of us have lots of ideas bantering around in our heads between meetings (or that have been dormant for a while) that this type of chance meeting could generate something of a meeting-of-the-minds about starting something new or something different that how it's done now. Many newcomers - whether this is their actual first meeting or just in their first few meetings - actively or passively seek out certain individuals for the possibility of having such a planned chance meeting in a hallway. None of this can effectively be done with IETF meetings moving to webex or worse, only on email. That said - I fully understand the financial burdens on people or corporations during non-robust years of economic (non) growth, such as we're in the middle of. JMO, which could be wrong James It seems to me that IETF is going in the wrong direction in terms of meetings. But maybe I'm getting old and cranky and everyone else has an ever expanding travel budget. chip ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
absolutely no hats On Sep 7, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: On Sep 7, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: On 9/3/10 3:45 PM, Hascall Sharp wrote: Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is required in order to participate effectively in the work. We have the same number as when I started attending around ietf 37. It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do work in the IETF without being physically present at meetings, as well. When I first started coming to the IETF regularly in 1999, I rapidly concluded that I needed to attent (more or less) every meeting to make much of an impact. That's just my opinion, but it would still be my recommendation. The audio streaming has gotten really excellent but that's one-way - there's far less support for Jabber participation (possibly as a result of the great audio), and for providing input from remote locations. There also seems to be a cultural shift and expectations have changed. There was one session at the last meeting in which the chairs asked for volunteers to do work between that meeting and the next one, but only from people who were actually present in the meeting room at the time. It's also more common to take votes and then announce the results on mailing lists. I, at least, have not seen too much of that and, if the chairs try it, in my experience the room or the ADs typically quickly remind them of the correct protocol. Regards Marshall It could be that chairs need more training or it could be that there's a broader cultural shift, but my perception, as someone who's both been to a lot of meetings and done a lot of remote participation, is the same as Chip's. (My answer is probably different; I think that if this is the way IETF participants prefer things, it should be institutionalized rather than papered over). Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Dave and I don't always agree :-) I don't think we've got either the database of people not attending because of costs nor a good model for factoring them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times some percentage who would still not attend because of other issues times some percentage where the location is problematic * etc etc). If you can figure this out, I think you could probably apply the same model to forecasting the US stock market... We have good data on past attendees. From that we can probably build a pretty good model on what each past attendees Pa (percentage chance of attending the next meeting) is. From that we can probably build a pretty good model of what our probable attendee demographics will look like absent the one-shot and/or local attendees. Let's stick with solid data rather than try and resolve the hypotheticals - I doubt the latter is possible in any meaningful way. Mike At 08:52 AM 9/6/2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 8/30/2010 1:10 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: There's already bias in the population of meeting attendees - do you, and, if so, how do you account for people who are already not attending because of costs? Yes! This is exactly the point I keep raising, about sampling error. We need to make sure that our analyses are with respect to the population (the full set of potential attendees) that we have in mind, rather than just a core of folk who usually attend. A theoretical analysis of fair costs doesn't query real people, so sampling is not an issue. But the second we start surveying, we need to consider folks not on the ietf@ or ietf-attendees@ lists. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do work in the IETF without being physically present at meetings, as well... I think that this has been true since the first IETF (at least if you replace the word increasingly with the word very). I also think that this is true of other standards groups that I have attended. If you attend a long string of meetings, you can probably miss one, send in a contribution, and people that you know might take it seriously. However, to have impact you need to make a habit of showing up at nearly every meeting (IMHO). Ross (also speaking with no hats on -- just giving my personal opinion). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Michael == Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net writes: Michael I don't think we've got either the database of people not Michael attending because of costs nor a good model for factoring Michael them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times some percentage who Do we at least have a list of people who attended remotely? (I don't think so) -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: Michael == Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net writes: Michael I don't think we've got either the database of people not Michael attending because of costs nor a good model for factoring Michael them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times some percentage who Do we at least have a list of people who attended remotely? (I don't think so) No, but we could make proxy lists (for example, people who have authored a RFC, but not attended any meetings, in the last N years, or people who only attend meetings in their home region, etc.). That shouldn't be too hard to do. Marshall -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:41 PM, Ross Callon wrote: It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do work in the IETF without being physically present at meetings, as well... I think that this has been true since the first IETF (at least if you replace the word increasingly with the word very). I also think that this is true of other standards groups that I have attended. If you attend a long string of meetings, you can probably miss one, send in a contribution, and people that you know might take it seriously. However, to have impact you need to make a habit of showing up at nearly every meeting (IMHO). That's generally been my experience also, both when I was attending IETF regularly and since. Part of why this is true may be that working group meetings are pretty nearly useless (especially if, as was the case last time I attended, most of the WG meeting time is devoted toPowerPoint presentations). Most of the real work gets done in the hallways, restaurants, and bars. Even if you can work out better ways of letting people remotely participate in the meetings, that doesn't help them contribute to the work that gets done elsewhere. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
True. But the visa issues seem to be the worst part of any US IETF. Travel, food and finding a hotel are typically much easier in most US venues then European venues. People from Europe, Japan, Australia, and some other countries don't need a visa at all to go to an IETF meeting in the US. People from China, India and the other countries are generally backed by employers, who can vouch for their travelling on business, and generally should not have any trouble obtaining the US visa. I would go so far as to say that getting a US visa seems easier than getting one to China. Who are the people for whom it's easier to visit a European country than it is to visit the US? On balance, I think US venues are generally better suited, and lead to less angst than either European or Asian venues. Even if they're in a cold place like Minneapolis. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg Sent: 06 September 2010 08:17 To: Andrew G. Malis; Glen Zorn Cc: Randall Gellens; IETF-Discussion list; Hadriel Kaplan Subject: RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent Hi, I assume Hawaii has the same visa issues as the rest of US... Regards, Christer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] writes: Hi, I assume Hawaii has the same visa issues as the rest of US... Of course, and the same heavily armed ICE agents. As an aside, the only other place I've ever encountered armed border guards was at the Austrian/Slovakian border (before the fall of the Berlin Wall). ... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
ICE? So, that's the reason why it takes forever to enter US. They use RFC 5245 at the border... Regards, Christer -Original Message- From: Glen Zorn [mailto:g...@net-zen.net] Sent: 6. syyskuuta 2010 10:21 To: Christer Holmberg; 'Andrew G. Malis' Cc: 'Randall Gellens'; 'IETF-Discussion list'; 'Hadriel Kaplan' Subject: RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] writes: Hi, I assume Hawaii has the same visa issues as the rest of US... Of course, and the same heavily armed ICE agents. As an aside, the only other place I've ever encountered armed border guards was at the Austrian/Slovakian border (before the fall of the Berlin Wall). ... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I guess the chinese (and other affected nationalities) can speak for themselves, but as far as I know it is not that easy to get a US visa - even with company backup etc. I have never heard about people having problems getting a chinese visa, but maybe such problems exist also. Personally I don't care that much where the meetings take place - I am more interested WHEN they take place. For me it is the PEOPLE that make a meeting good or bad - not the location. There are people working in much worse conditions than we are, and still they manage to do a great job. Regards, Christer -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yoav Nir Sent: 6. syyskuuta 2010 10:06 To: IETF-Discussion list Subject: RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent True. But the visa issues seem to be the worst part of any US IETF. Travel, food and finding a hotel are typically much easier in most US venues then European venues. People from Europe, Japan, Australia, and some other countries don't need a visa at all to go to an IETF meeting in the US. People from China, India and the other countries are generally backed by employers, who can vouch for their travelling on business, and generally should not have any trouble obtaining the US visa. I would go so far as to say that getting a US visa seems easier than getting one to China. Who are the people for whom it's easier to visit a European country than it is to visit the US? On balance, I think US venues are generally better suited, and lead to less angst than either European or Asian venues. Even if they're in a cold place like Minneapolis. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg Sent: 06 September 2010 08:17 To: Andrew G. Malis; Glen Zorn Cc: Randall Gellens; IETF-Discussion list; Hadriel Kaplan Subject: RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent Hi, I assume Hawaii has the same visa issues as the rest of US... Regards, Christer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Yoav Nit [mailto://y...@checkpoint.com] writes: ... I would go so far as to say that getting a US visa seems easier than getting one to China. Who are the people for whom it's easier to visit a European country than it is to visit the US? Umm, Americans? I have lived outside the US for about three years now returning for a visit has always been painful, even if normal. The normal pain includes answering such questions as How long have you been gone? and Why did you leave? (??!), the natural response (which had better not be given!) being On what planet is that the business of the government?; the less normal pain (for most, I guess; it happened to me 14 times in a row from 2000-2008, of course having nothing to do w/my political views ;-) is being detained for a couple of hours while agents tear apart inspect the contents of my luggage, laptop, camera, mobile phone, etc. By contrast, I have visited at least two dozen other countries (many of them multiple times) in Europe, Asia North America over the last 25 years had problems w/Customs and/or Immigration exactly twice. ... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Christer Holmberg [mailto://christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] writes: I guess the chinese (and other affected nationalities) can speak for themselves, but as far as I know it is not that easy to get a US visa - even with company backup etc. I have never heard about people having problems getting a chinese visa, but maybe such problems exist also. If you hold a Thai passport want to attend an IETF in, say, 2013, you had better apply for a visa now; any meeting before that is likely impossible. Personally I don't care that much where the meetings take place - I am more interested WHEN they take place. For me it is the PEOPLE that make a meeting good or bad - not the location. There are people working in much worse conditions than we are, and still they manage to do a great job. Humans can do amazing things in truly abysmal conditions but how this is relevant is beyond me unless the contest is to see how miserable we can make ourselves (3 meetings/year in Minneapolis, anyone?). ... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Personally I don't care that much where the meetings take place - I am more interested WHEN they take place. For me it is the PEOPLE that make a meeting good or bad - not the location. There are people working in much worse conditions than we are, and still they manage to do a great job. Humans can do amazing things in truly abysmal conditions but how this is relevant is beyond me unless the contest is to see how miserable we can make ourselves (3 meetings/year in Minneapolis, anyone?). The point is that we in IETF are a bunch of lazy and spoiled children. I am not saying that we should see how miserable we can make ourselves on purpose. I am saying that if there is a will, there is a way. Regards, Christer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 3:52 PM To: Yoav Nir; IETF-Discussion list Subject: RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent I guess the chinese (and other affected nationalities) can speak for themselves, but as far as I know it is not that easy to get a US visa - even with company Yes, as far as I can tell, for Chinese, US visa is usually harder than European visa :( Xiangsong ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I should point out that Canada has most of the logistical advantages the usa enjoys, while imposing quite a bit less visa pain. - Tim On Sep 5, 2010 3:39 PM, Andrew G. Malis agma...@gmail.com wrote: I've been to several conferences at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in Waikiki. Both the hotel and the attached convention center are large enough to host several IETFs simultaneously. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net wrote: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto://hkap...@acmepacket.com] writes: ... Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. Because it's the nicest, obviously. :) I strongly disagree: the leeward coast of Maui (in particular, Kihei south) is far better. Kauai is way too rainy... We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. I used to attend IEEE 802 and they met in Kauai (Grand Hyatt in Poipu) every few years, but they were a smaller group. There aren't many restaurants nearby, but I certainly don't remember anyone ever complaining about it. ;) 3GPP2 used to (still does?) meet in Wailea every December. Although that is also a much smaller group than the IETF, the hotels dwarfed it so it might be possible to find a reasonable venue for the IETF. However, I think that this is just an idle fantasy: the IETF has too much moral fiber to meet someplace that might actually be fun ;-). -hadriel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Tim Bray [mailto:tb...@textuality.com] writes: I should point out that Canada has most of the logistical advantages the usa enjoys, while imposing quite a bit less visa pain. Well, yes, except that in my experience direct international flight to Canada are a lot more expensive than international connections to Canada through the US and since the concept of international transit is foreign to the American authorities (after all, having reached Heaven on Earth why would anyone want to go anywhere else? ;-), we're right back where we started. . ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Tim Bray wrote: I should point out that Canada has most of the logistical advantages the usa enjoys, while imposing quite a bit less visa pain. Actually, based on my own experience, getting a Canadian visa is usually *faster* than getting a US visa, but probably much more *painful*. That's my experience with getting Canadian visas (I have got four or five), from Buenos Aires (Argentina), being an Argentinian citizen. Europe is much better in this respect. For instance, they don't require visas for many latin-american countries (including Argentina). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I've been to several conferences at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in Waikiki. Both the hotel and the attached convention center are large enough to host several IETFs simultaneously. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net wrote: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto://hkap...@acmepacket.com] writes: ... Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. Because it's the nicest, obviously. :) I strongly disagree: the leeward coast of Maui (in particular, Kihei south) is far better. Kauai is way too rainy... We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. I used to attend IEEE 802 and they met in Kauai (Grand Hyatt in Poipu) every few years, but they were a smaller group. There aren't many restaurants nearby, but I certainly don't remember anyone ever complaining about it. ;) 3GPP2 used to (still does?) meet in Wailea every December. Although that is also a much smaller group than the IETF, the hotels dwarfed it so it might be possible to find a reasonable venue for the IETF. However, I think that this is just an idle fantasy: the IETF has too much moral fiber to meet someplace that might actually be fun ;-). -hadriel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Hi, I assume Hawaii has the same visa issues as the rest of US... Regards, Christer -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis Sent: 6. syyskuuta 2010 1:39 To: Glen Zorn Cc: Randall Gellens; IETF-Discussion list; Hadriel Kaplan Subject: Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent I've been to several conferences at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in Waikiki. Both the hotel and the attached convention center are large enough to host several IETFs simultaneously. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net wrote: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto://hkap...@acmepacket.com] writes: ... Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. Because it's the nicest, obviously. :) I strongly disagree: the leeward coast of Maui (in particular, Kihei south) is far better. Kauai is way too rainy... We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. I used to attend IEEE 802 and they met in Kauai (Grand Hyatt in Poipu) every few years, but they were a smaller group. There aren't many restaurants nearby, but I certainly don't remember anyone ever complaining about it. ;) 3GPP2 used to (still does?) meet in Wailea every December. Although that is also a much smaller group than the IETF, the hotels dwarfed it so it might be possible to find a reasonable venue for the IETF. However, I think that this is just an idle fantasy: the IETF has too much moral fiber to meet someplace that might actually be fun ;-). -hadriel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Randall Gellens rg+i...@qualcomm.com wrote: At 10:08 AM +0700 9/1/10, Glen Zorn wrote: Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. Because it's the nicest, obviously. :) I strongly disagree: the leeward coast of Maui (in particular, Kihei south) is far better. Kauai is way too rainy... However, any of the Hawaiian islands would be a great choice, given the ease of travel arrangements, the warm weather which reduces the need for much of the luggage (no need for warm clothes), IEEE 802 wireless interim meetings in September have been at the Waikoloa Resort for the last few years. The meeting rooms are so heavily air condituoned that the attendees now know to bring a sweater to the meeting. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Anything labeled NEW and/or IMPROVED isn't. The label means the price went up. The label ALL NEW, COMPLETELY NEW, or GREAT NEW means the price went way up. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Principal Engineer Corporate Standardization (US) SISA ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Clint Chaplin [mailto:clint.chap...@gmail.com] writes: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Randall Gellens rg+i...@qualcomm.com wrote: At 10:08 AM +0700 9/1/10, Glen Zorn wrote: Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. Because it's the nicest, obviously. :) I strongly disagree: the leeward coast of Maui (in particular, Kihei south) is far better. Kauai is way too rainy... However, any of the Hawaiian islands would be a great choice, given the ease of travel arrangements, the warm weather which reduces the need for much of the luggage (no need for warm clothes), IEEE 802 wireless interim meetings in September have been at the Waikoloa Resort for the last few years. The meeting rooms are so heavily air condituoned that the attendees now know to bring a sweater to the meeting. Bad luck/poor communication? The meetings I've attended there (both IEEE WiMAX) have been comfortable -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Anything labeled NEW and/or IMPROVED isn't. The label means the price went up. The label ALL NEW, COMPLETELY NEW, or GREAT NEW means the price went way up. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Principal Engineer Corporate Standardization (US) SISA ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
- Original Message - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com To: Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl Cc: IETF-Discussion list ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 10:33 PM On 30 aug 2010, at 21:57, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) Am I missing something? Yes. Optimizing for min(X+Y+Z) WITH the constraint X=Y=Z is almost certainly going to produce a higher X+Y+Z than without that constraint. In other words, if you want to be fair the total expense for the entire community will be larger. Contrary to popular belief, distance is not the most important factor in travel expenses. My flight from Madrid to Dublin cost almost what I paid to fly from Amsterdam to Minneapolis a few years before. Hotel rates have a much bigger impact, especially now that the official IETF hotels seem to be getting more expensive every time we meet. I agree about the distance. I see America as the travel industry's equivalent of the sociometric star, and would happily go for 6:0:0 since it is travel costs that dictate my presence (usually absence:-( By contrast, almost anywhere in Europe is more expensive to get to (from the UK). Tom Petch ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On Aug 31, 2010, at 10:43 AM, t.petch wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) One place that sucks for everybody has the great advantage of reducing the stress associated with travel. A lot of people were stressed about the various ways of getting to Maastricht, and a lot more are stressed about getting to Beijing (what with various kinds of visas, hotels and taxi drivers who don't speak any language other than Chinese) If we standardize on one place, then by your second meeting, you know everything about the place, and people can cutpaste their complaints from the previous meeting. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On Aug 30, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Gellens wrote: Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. Because it's the nicest, obviously. :) We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. I used to attend IEEE 802 and they met in Kauai (Grand Hyatt in Poipu) every few years, but they were a smaller group. There aren't many restaurants nearby, but I certainly don't remember anyone ever complaining about it. ;) -hadriel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Hadriel Kaplan hkap...@acmepacket.com wrote: On Aug 30, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Gellens wrote: Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. Because it's the nicest, obviously. :) See http://www.pothole.com/~dee3/kauai.html Donald We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. I used to attend IEEE 802 and they met in Kauai (Grand Hyatt in Poipu) every few years, but they were a smaller group. There aren't many restaurants nearby, but I certainly don't remember anyone ever complaining about it. ;) -hadriel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
--On Monday, August 30, 2010 21:57 +0200 Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote: The recent remark on bias against individuals[*] made me think about weighing the location preference by number of participants from certain regions. Suppose an individual from Asia attends all IETFs then her costs are that for attending 6 IETFs she gets to travel 1x regional and 5x interregional. While an individual from the US travels 3x regional and 3x interregional. Clearly there is a bias agains our Asian colleague in with respect of the costs. Using participation/contribution numbers to weigh locations minimizes the global costs (total amount of miles flown, carbon spend, lost hours by the collective, total amount of whining) but nothing of that flows back to the individual engineer that attends every time. If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) Am I missing something? Well,... Speaking as one of those independent consultants who, in the last eight years or so has attended every IETF meeting and paid all of my own costs to all but one of them (I had a registration fee waived once), and who was previously sometimes in the approval loop for corporate permission/sponsorship by others... If you want to go very far down the path you outline, you have to ask some questions that we have never asked and to which you/we may not want to know the answers. Examples: * Are there differences in different regions as to the ratio between those who are really participating as individuals and those who have corporate sponsorship? * If a corporation typically sends a lot of people to IETF but has overall cost constraints such that some choices of location might reduce the total number of people they sent, would that really reduce overall IETF effectiveness? Put differently, if such a corporation cut participation by Go-ers and various other forms of tourists and damage-preventers, leaving only those who actively contribute to the IETF's work, would that result in a worse or slower IETF product? * Coming back to another optimization discussion, would you want to adjust the weightings to favor those who are actively participating in a variety of IETF efforts over those who come to participate in one or two WGs and otherwise have spare time? * Remember that, for some people and some companies, the perceived costs of having someone with real design or product responsibility away from his or her desk may completely dominate any travel or registration costs. For other situations, that is definitely not the case. If one really wants to look at costs in depth, I would also point out that the Beijing meeting has a de facto minimum registration fee (registration + minimum visa fee) for US citizens of $775 and one for most others of $110 less. Because of differences in visa policies in other countries, meetings in other locations may impose differentials disfavoring other groups. And all of that is in addition to points made by others including that distance is not a very good surrogate for overall costs (or even airfares), that some of these optimizations may pessimize overall attendance or attendance by active participants, etc. So, while I might personally benefit from the sort of revision in formula you suggest, I have significant doubts that you can really make those measurements and that optimization correctly (for some sensible value of correct). Unless we can figure out how to control overall costs and the cost-efficiency ratio for just about everyone, I know I'm going to need to stop attending meetings face to face for which I don't have (or seek) sponsorship. That is just how it is; I'd much rather see the focus on controlling overall costs to everyone, examining locations and meeting schedules for their consequences on time away from home (which translates into lost billable hours for some of us and irritated families for some others), whether a meeting in a particular location requires making a tradeoff between staying in an inconvenient place and staying in an expensive luxury hotel, and so on. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Hadriel Kaplan [mailto://hkap...@acmepacket.com] writes: ... Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. Because it's the nicest, obviously. :) I strongly disagree: the leeward coast of Maui (in particular, Kihei south) is far better. Kauai is way too rainy... We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. I used to attend IEEE 802 and they met in Kauai (Grand Hyatt in Poipu) every few years, but they were a smaller group. There aren't many restaurants nearby, but I certainly don't remember anyone ever complaining about it. ;) 3GPP2 used to (still does?) meet in Wailea every December. Although that is also a much smaller group than the IETF, the hotels dwarfed it so it might be possible to find a reasonable venue for the IETF. However, I think that this is just an idle fantasy: the IETF has too much moral fiber to meet someplace that might actually be fun ;-). -hadriel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
At 10:08 AM +0700 9/1/10, Glen Zorn wrote: Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. Because it's the nicest, obviously. :) I strongly disagree: the leeward coast of Maui (in particular, Kihei south) is far better. Kauai is way too rainy... On this point I am in agreement with Glen. However, any of the Hawaiian islands would be a great choice, given the ease of travel arrangements, the warm weather which reduces the need for much of the luggage (no need for warm clothes), and the general difficulty of being disagreeable in such an environment. Many of the conference facilities are open-air, with roofs and protection from rain but still providing ample fresh air and natural light. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- Anything labeled NEW and/or IMPROVED isn't. The label means the price went up. The label ALL NEW, COMPLETELY NEW, or GREAT NEW means the price went way up. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 30 aug 2010, at 21.57, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) I agree with this finding. Am I missing something? If you do, then I do as well. [*] Independent consultants, somebody not financially backed up by big corporations. Also big corporations do have limited budget for IETF participation, so this would I claim be valid also for other participants. Although limited budget is a different thing than the non-negotiable situation of do not have the money at all. Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 30 aug 2010, at 21.57, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) I agree with this finding. It seems to me that a process like that would tend to lead to incorrect results. There's already bias in the population of meeting attendees - do you, and, if so, how do you account for people who are already not attending because of costs? And region can be tricky and misleading, and it's hard to know how to account for corner cases. I'm in the United States but travel from interior Alaska has very little in common with travel from NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. I think it's very difficult to find really great meeting facilities as it is, and it seems to me that that should be the primary focus. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 30 aug 2010, at 22.10, Melinda Shore wrote: On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 30 aug 2010, at 21.57, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) I agree with this finding. It seems to me that a process like that would tend to lead to incorrect results. There's already bias in the population of meeting attendees - do you, and, if so, how do you account for people who are already not attending because of costs? What Olaf wrote, if I did not misunderstand him, was that X=Y=Z, so that people living in the three regions each have to travel to say four meetings outside their region while getting two meetings inside their own region. No connection to who goes to the IETF meetings today. Part from of course that we do not have Africa or South America as regions, and the poor people in Australia have to travel far for all meetings. Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
If there was a meeting with 1,000 participants from one location (say Stockholm), and one participant from a very distant location (say, Sydney Australia), then this argument would put half of the meetings in Stockholm, and half of the meetings in Sydney Australia. Another possible criteria would be to minimize the total cost paid for travel, without regard for who is paying. With this model, if there were 1,000 participants from Stockholm, and 999 participants from Sydney, we would have all meeting in Stockholm. Of course, in this case a change of two participants could cause all meetings to switch to the other location. In practice we compromise between these two considerations, plus others (such as where companies are willing to sponsor a meeting). Thus we mostly have meetings in locations proportionately to where people are coming from. Ross -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Olaf Kolkman Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 3:58 PM To: IETF-Discussion list Subject: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent The recent remark on bias against individuals[*] made me think about weighing the location preference by number of participants from certain regions. Suppose an individual from Asia attends all IETFs then her costs are that for attending 6 IETFs she gets to travel 1x regional and 5x interregional. While an individual from the US travels 3x regional and 3x interregional. Clearly there is a bias agains our Asian colleague in with respect of the costs. Using participation/contribution numbers to weigh locations minimizes the global costs (total amount of miles flown, carbon spend, lost hours by the collective, total amount of whining) but nothing of that flows back to the individual engineer that attends every time. If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) Am I missing something? --Olaf (strictly personal) [*] Independent consultants, somebody not financially backed up by big corporations. Olaf M. KolkmanNLnet Labs Science Park 140, http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
That is a well defined target metric. It is defensible. It is not the one the community has used up till now. One could also aim to minimize total cost (or total pain). Arguably, that would place all the meetings in california. Up to till now, we have worked on a balance between those two objectives. To take an extreme example, Olaf's argument would be equally valid if 1/10th of our active participants were from North America. But it would seem pretty silly to put 1/3 of the meetings in the North America in that case. Yours, Joel Patrik Fältström wrote: On 30 aug 2010, at 22.10, Melinda Shore wrote: On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 30 aug 2010, at 21.57, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) I agree with this finding. It seems to me that a process like that would tend to lead to incorrect results. There's already bias in the population of meeting attendees - do you, and, if so, how do you account for people who are already not attending because of costs? What Olaf wrote, if I did not misunderstand him, was that X=Y=Z, so that people living in the three regions each have to travel to say four meetings outside their region while getting two meetings inside their own region. No connection to who goes to the IETF meetings today. Part from of course that we do not have Africa or South America as regions, and the poor people in Australia have to travel far for all meetings. Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 30 aug 2010, at 21:57, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) Am I missing something? Yes. Optimizing for min(X+Y+Z) WITH the constraint X=Y=Z is almost certainly going to produce a higher X+Y+Z than without that constraint. In other words, if you want to be fair the total expense for the entire community will be larger. Contrary to popular belief, distance is not the most important factor in travel expenses. My flight from Madrid to Dublin cost almost what I paid to fly from Amsterdam to Minneapolis a few years before. Hotel rates have a much bigger impact, especially now that the official IETF hotels seem to be getting more expensive every time we meet. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
The obvious answer is to pick a location that is equi-distant or equally expensive for most people, and does not meet too often in one contintent. There is such a place: Hawaii. It is fairly mid-point between APAC and the Americas, and just slightly farther from Europe (well, a lot farther if you can't fly direct, but that's just due to airline routes, not distance-between-two-points). Furthermore, it's not in any continent, and thus equal for all in that regard. And it's a great tourist destination, and has plenty of meeting facilities, restaurants, Internet bandwidth, and no trains. So this seems to address everyone's concerns. Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on. We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Problem solved. -hadriel On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting fairly large error bars on the costs but isn't the X-Y-Z distribution where X= approx Y= approx Z the closest optimum? (or finding one place that sucks equally for everybody) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On 30 aug 2010, at 23:47, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on. We can even rotate islands if people get bored. No, we'd still have to rotate oceans. Iceland is nice and close to both NA and EU (farther north generally helps), but we still need something in the Indian Ocean. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I vote for Mauritius. I'm sure AfriNIC would be glad to host. --Richard On Aug 30, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 30 aug 2010, at 23:47, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on. We can even rotate islands if people get bored. No, we'd still have to rotate oceans. Iceland is nice and close to both NA and EU (farther north generally helps), but we still need something in the Indian Ocean. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
At 5:47 PM -0400 8/30/10, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: The obvious answer is to pick a location that is equi-distant or equally expensive for most people, and does not meet too often in one contintent. There is such a place: Hawaii. It is fairly mid-point between APAC and the Americas, and just slightly farther from Europe (well, a lot farther if you can't fly direct, but that's just due to airline routes, not distance-between-two-points). Furthermore, it's not in any continent, and thus equal for all in that regard. And it's a great tourist destination, and has plenty of meeting facilities, restaurants, Internet bandwidth, and no trains. So this seems to address everyone's concerns. Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on. Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- The chance of forgetting something is directly proportional to.touh.. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
The island that would probably best address most of the concerns brought up recently is Oahu. Large hotels on the neighbor islands tend to be resorts, where the idea is to keep you in the one hotel while not sightseeing. While there are several large hotels on Oahu that have meeting facilities, there is also the Hawaii Convention Center (http://www.hawaiiconvention.com/). Honolulu International Airport (HNL) has extensive direct connections to North America and Asia. The hotels in Waikiki are an easy taxi/bus/shuttle/rental car ride away. There are many restaurants and bars (of various repute) an easy walk from the Convention Center, as well as a major shopping center. There are several large hotels within 10 minutes walk. Hotel and airline prices will depend on the season. Spring and Fall would probably be the least expensive. The main problem would probably be finding a sponsor. Robin Uyeshiro Inst. for Astronomy Univ. of Hawaii -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randall Gellens Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:21 PM To: Hadriel Kaplan Cc: IETF-Discussion list Subject: Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent At 5:47 PM -0400 8/30/10, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: The obvious answer is to pick a location that is equi-distant or equally expensive for most people, and does not meet too often in one contintent. There is such a place: Hawaii. It is fairly mid-point between APAC and the Americas, and just slightly farther from Europe (well, a lot farther if you can't fly direct, but that's just due to airline routes, not distance-between-two-points). Furthermore, it's not in any continent, and thus equal for all in that regard. And it's a great tourist destination, and has plenty of meeting facilities, restaurants, Internet bandwidth, and no trains. So this seems to address everyone's concerns. Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on. Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island. We can even rotate islands if people get bored. Well, there are extensive conference facilities on Oahu, the Big Island, Maui, and Kauai. I have no information as to if they would work for a group of our size and with our need for breakout rooms. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- The chance of forgetting something is directly proportional to.touh.. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
First I like the idea of Hawaii because flights and hotels can be inexpensive even from Europe (although Hilo might be cheaper and just as easy to get to as Honolulu). However I still think we need to account for actual participation in the equation to decide which places to hold meetings. Participation is more than just registering. Scott On Aug 30, 2010 7:54 PM, Robin Uyeshiro uyesh...@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote: The island that would probably best address most of the concerns brought up recently is Oahu. Large hotels on the neighbor islands tend to be resorts, where the idea is to keep you in the one hotel while not sightseeing. While there are several large hotels on Oahu that have meeting facilities, there is also the Hawaii Convention Center (http://www.hawaiiconvention.com/). Honolulu International Airport (HNL) has extensive direct connections to North America and Asia. The hotels in Waikiki are an easy taxi/bus/shuttle/rental car ride away. There are many restaurants and bars (of various repute) an easy walk from the Convention Center, as well as a major shopping center. There are several large hotels within 10 minutes walk. Hotel and airline prices will depend on the season. Spring and Fall would probably be the least expensive. The main problem would probably be finding a sponsor. Robin Uyeshiro Inst. for Astronomy Univ. of Hawaii -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randall Gellens Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:21 PM To: Hadriel Kaplan Cc: IETF-Discussion list S... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
