Subject: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF]

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:53:32 -0000

Trimming SM's email...

> There is a direct contribution of US $2.2 million by the Internet
> Society next year.  Is the plan to rely on Internet Society subsidies
> or to fix the deficit?  One argument made was that the fees have not
> been increased over the last years.  I'll point out that there hasn't
> been significant increase in paid attendance over the years.  Either
> the IETF is only relevant to the usual folks or else the meetings are
> not made relevant enough for (new) people to attend.

I am repeatedly struck by how many new people *do* attend.

According to Russ's slides [1] 195/1098 are newcomers. And just to labour the
point, a newcomer is not a returnee after 10 years, but someone who has never
attended before.

This number (around 10%) seems consistent over all meetings. So naively, we
should be growing our attendance by around 300 per year.

That we are not reflects our inability to retain, not our inability to attract
(assuming that we are not completely refreshing the IETF attendance every three
or four years). Should not be rocket science to follow up with some newcomers to
find out why they only attend once and never come back.

All other points made by SM may be valid.

Adrian

[1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-iesg-opsandtech-13

---

From: Riccardo Bernardini <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:25:10 +0100

> find out why they only attend once and never come back.

Hi,
I am one of those non-returning newcomers, so maybe I can reply with
my own motivations.  I came to Maastricht, few meetings ago because I
had some specific interest (and, I admit, I was a bit curios of seeing
a meeting live, but that was not the main motivation... Just the icing
on the cake).

I did not return (yet, I think I'll do) because I work in the
University, so scientific conferences are more natural an environment
for me.  Also, depending on the location, a 1-week participation is
quite expensive (not more expensive than your average conference, but
expensive nevertheless) and since funding are pretty scarce, coming to
a meeting (with my regret) is something that I'll do when I'll have
some very strong motivation.

Add to this that you can do most of interaction via e-mail and can
remotely participate via streaming + jabber and you can understand
that it is unlikely to have the strict necessity of being "on place."

So, to summarize

Q: Why did you come?
A: Because I had a very specific interest

Q: Why did you not return?
A: Because the necessity of being at meeting does not compensate for
the cost.  Also I work at University, so I participate more to
scientific conference than to engineering meetings. (Also, teaching
duties do not help)

Q: Do you plan to return?
A: Yes, I do, maybe fairly soon, but I have no precise plan yet.

Riccardo

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:31:56 -0500

There's obviously a subset of the "newcomers" who only attend because a
meeting is local or otherwise convenient to attend, or come with narrowly
focused interests, and never planned to become a regular.

Since attendance is largely flat over last few years, obviously newcomers
that become regulars are offset by existing participants that drop out or
cannot make a particular meeting. Drop outs have to be expected for any
number of reasons, such as change in job function, change in (or loss of)
employer, end of a work item of interest, and so on.

I, for one, think we're actually not in a bad place right now, and would
not welcome a return of the 2600-attendee meetings, where meeting rooms and
hallways were filled to overflowing, with no real commensurate increase in
the set of participants doing the work.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:16:46 -0800

Hi Andy,
At 07:31 08-11-2012, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>There's obviously a subset of the "newcomers" who only attend 
>because a meeting is local or otherwise convenient to attend, or 
>come with narrowly focused interests, and never planned to become a regular.

Yes.

>Since attendance is largely flat over last few years, obviously 
>newcomers that become regulars are offset by existing participants 
>that drop out or cannot make a particular meeting. Drop outs have to 
>be expected for any number of reasons, such as change in job 
>function, change in (or loss of) employer, end of a work item of 
>interest, and so on.

I suggest looking at this differently as it might provide a better 
answer to Adrian's comment.  Is there any data to explain why 
attendance is flat?

>I, for one, think we're actually not in a bad place right now, and 
>would not welcome a return of the 2600-attendee meetings, where 
>meeting rooms and hallways were filled to overflowing, with no real 
>commensurate increase in the set of participants doing the work.

I was following this working group which will likely be shut down 
because there is not enough participation.  There are quite a few 
working group which fit that profile.  I prefer not to view things as 
"actually not in a bad place" as it encourages complacency.

Personally, I like to see messages such as 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75744.html as it 
helps to understand the views which often go unheard.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:51:16 -0500

SM,

I was following this working group which will likely be shut down because
> there is not enough participation.  There are quite a few working group
> which fit that profile.  I prefer not to view things as "actually not in a
> bad place" as it encourages complacency.
>

Back in the 90s, I chaired a WG that regularly had less than 10 attendees,
but all of them were interested and contributed, and we got a good set of
RFCs as a result. You don't need a large number of participants, just
committed ones.

I do agree though, that was a good response from Riccardo.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 12:08:02 -0800

Hi Andy,
At 11:51 08-11-2012, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>Back in the 90s, I chaired a WG that regularly had less than 10 
>attendees, but all of them were interested and contributed, and we 
>got a good set of RFCs as a result. You don't need a large number of 
>participants, just committed ones.

Agreed.

The thread that Adrian commented about was Newcomers.  During 
yesterday's plenary someone mentioned mentorship.  These (new) 
participants will be the committed ones of tomorrow or else there is 
no tomorrow.

Regards,
-sm