Hi Stephen, Good answers! Now we know about what we are talking. Thank you.
My comments in the text: Em 24/05/2013 16:19, Stephen Farrell escreveu: > In my mind at least there's a 0-th level requirement > that comes before these: > > 0. Make the Internet better by getting more geographically > diverse, technically good, input and participation. > Perfect! > And again you do not need to be at meetings to participate. > Email is fine. > > Of course if you want to do lots of IETF stuff, then getting > to meetings becomes important. > I think this same way, so. >> 1. What we looking for? >> 1.1. Realize a IETF below the Equator line (Buenos Aires is a great option)? >> 1.2. Encouraging people of so-called "emerging countries" to participate >> in IETF meetings (in person or remotely)? > > 1.2 for me. But I'm also in favour of 1.1, though at a lower > priority. > I agree. >> >> 2. Why? >> 2.1. (1.2) <=> (1.1)? My answer is NO! > > I don't get that. > To encoraging people is necessary to realize meetings below the Equator line? To realize meetings below the Equator line will encourage people... ? You ask this question below when you said that geographic is not a problem. I think so. >> 2.2. IETF needs more people to work? My answer is YES! Protocols are in >> change, new technologies (ontologies, Semantic Web, ...), new >> techniques, etc. > > Sort of. I think we need more people who are technically > clueful about stuff, for a wide set of different kinds of > stuff. > Is my opinion, also. >> 2.3. We want more people to participate, effectively (a.k.a. Melinda >> three points)? So, what do we need to do? >> >> 3. What kind of things should we discuss? >> 3.1. Costs of travel and stay? In the context of this can be irrelevant >> (we can participate remotely...). In any place of the world, costs are >> equivalent, I think. >> 3.2. Show what do IETF, ISOC, and others for people who do not know yet? >> 3.3. Food an meals in the IETF meetings? > > Seems ok, but too much focus on your 3.x often distract people > on IETF lists. > Correct! :) >> 4. Some observations: >> 4.1. The personal attendance at meetings of the IETF are falling after >> year 2000. See the blue line at Figure 3 (Figura 3, in Portuguese) in > > The dot-com bust was the biggest factor in the decline in > numbers compared to 1999/2000. That was economic (craziness;-) > and not geographic. > OK. >> http://ii.blog.br/2013/01/10/ietf-d-58-como-participar-das-reunioes-do-ietf/, >> at the end. I do not know about the remote participation. The red line >> is participation of Brazilians (a real disaster!) > > Yeah. Mind you, the level of Irish participation is also > pretty crappy;-( > If you think that Irish has 6.5 m inhabitants and Brazil about 200 m, Brazil is much more than a disaster... We where 5 in Orlando. >> 4.2. The participation of LACNIC is in the last position (2.? %). >> 4.3. Clearly the issues related to Infrastructure Internet are becoming >> more complex. (2.2 above). >> >> Finally, where should we discuss this? In ericas list or ietf list > > I'd say generic issues here, BA specifics on the thread on the > IETF list. Done. > > Cheers, > S. Regards, Juliao
