Subject: [Mtgvenue] Participant vs Contributor

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:17:18 -0400

As we move towards formalizing our discussions in drafts, I think we
should pay attention to a point raised by Brian, to paraphrase: That our
process documents (Start with https://www.ietf.org/ipr/policy.html and
follow links) subtly differentiate Participants vs Contributors.

While not directly defined, I read the documents as saying:

- A Contributor is someone who submits an IETF Contribution, which is
defined as [1]

- A participant is anyone who engages in the IETF activities listed
under [1] in any way other than as a Contributor.

Perhaps it would be good to get sick a formal definition of this in the
WG version of mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process...

Lou

[1] RFC 3979, page 2

   c. "IETF Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the
      Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or
      RFC (except for RFC Editor Contributions described below) and any
      statement made within the context of an IETF activity.  Such
      statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as
      written and electronic communications made at any time or place,
      which are addressed to:

      o  the IETF plenary session,
      o  any IETF working group or portion thereof,
      o  the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
      o  the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
      o  any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any
         working group or design team list, or any other list
         functioning under IETF auspices,
      o  the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function (except for RFC
         Editor Contributions described below).

      Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other
      function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
      activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the
      context of this document.

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 00:39:37 +0000

> On Jul 13, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Lou Berger <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

It would be very helpful to think through the ramifications of these definitions, and describe a way that they can be implemented without having an army of interns.

Text?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 19:08:18 +1200

> It would be very helpful to think through the ramifications of these definitions, and describe a way that they can be implemented without having an army of interns.

No. My point was that we should **NOT** confuse matters by mixing the legal
definitions for IPR purposes with the pragmatic definitions for metrics.
So no text. Incidentally I agree with Fred that defining metrics that can
be automated is quite hard, but it has nothing to do with RFC3979.

   Brian

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:52:33 -0400

> definitions for IPR purposes with the pragmatic definitions for metrics.

Sure, but there is a choice here -- do meetings serve just contributors
or all participants.

Right now the draft(s) focus on *all* participants, but some of the
discussions (e.g., those related to measurements) seem more focused on
Contributors.   My point wasn't to say one focus is right, but rather we
should be deliberate in our discussion and consensus WRT the distinction.

Lou

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:36:04 +0800

On 14 Jul 2016, at 21:52, Lou Berger wrote:

>>> It would be very helpful to think through the ramifications of these 
>>> definitions, and describe a way that they can be implemented without 
>>> having an army of interns.
>>>
>>> Text?

I understand the difference and I am all for focus on actionable output 
from the IETF process and the contributors are primarily those that 
produce that output. (Perhaps that — those participants that are 
actively involved in producing IETF output — is a useful definition in 
this context)

But, I think we should be careful to consider non-contributing 
participants as being less important to the IETF. It is not the case 
that those participants have no reason to be at the IETF. They may be 
the future contributors, they may be the implementors that make our 
technology relevant, or may be the future champions of the IETF mission.

—Olaf

- - -
Olaf M Kolkman
On Personal Title

- - -

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:29:15 +0000 (UTC)

>I understand the difference and I am all for focus on actionable output from the IETF process and the contributors are primarily those that produce that output. >(Perhaps that — those participants that are actively involved in producing IETF output — is a useful definition in this context)

>But, I think we should be careful to consider non-contributing participants as being less important to the IETF. It is not the case that those participants have >no reason to be at the IETF. They may be the future contributors, they may be the implementors that make our technology relevant, or may be the future champions >of the IETF mission. 

I agree that non-contributing persons are important for the future, etc.   We should also decide if "levels" of contribution are somehow important to think about.  I think we will have that discussion on Monday at the Mtgvenue session also.

And, I am wondering about the word "participant".   I wonder if "observer" and "contributor" might not make the distinction more clear.

Nalini

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:48:11 +1200

On 15/07/2016 18:29, [email-masked] wrote:
...
> And, I am wondering about the word "participant".   I wonder if "observer" and "contributor" might not make the distinction more clear.

I quite like that. "Observer" isn't necessarily a bad thing to be. In fact, the newcomers'
page recommends it as the way to start (https://www.ietf.org/newcomers.html#start).
But of course we can never measure in advance which observers are future contributors,
which are simply curious/interested, and which are patent trolls.

    Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 10:31:26 +0200

These are great terms. On substance though for our meeting site selections, I worry that making a too hard line between those that contribute and those that don’t could be detrimental to our evolving set of contributors. Historically, you can very clearly see how some sets of people initially started out as participating, starting slowly making more substantial contributions, and eventually were able to get WG drafts and RFCs. One person’s tourist is another person’s future contributor. I do agree though that our meeting selections and other processes should be geared towards those that contribute.

Jari

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:35:11 -0400

To add to what Jari said, with which I completely agree, some of the most
valuable work done on the IETF is review and criticism. Nobody likes being
criticized, but peer review is necessary to avoid producing poorly executed
good ideas.

This can turn into obstructiveness, of course, but we can't do without it
when it's done well. And yet it's hard to acknowledge every contribution of
this sort. Sometimes a contribution winds up stopping an effort that was
going in a bad direction.

Furthermore some of the most useful help I've gotten as an author comes as
a result of ideas propagating from participant to participant where I don't
actually know who to acknowledge. This shared thinking process is crucial
to the most interesting work that the IETF does, IMHO.

I think the proposed idea of defining types of participation is almost
certain to do long term damage to the functioning of the IETF, even though
I completely respect the intention behind doing so. The problem is not that
it's completely wrong in context, but that it will escape its context.

On Jul 17, 2016 10:31, "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> These are great terms. On substance though for our meeting site
> selections, I worry that making a too hard line between those that
> contribute and those that don’t could be detrimental to our evolving set of
> contributors. Historically, you can very clearly see how some sets of
> people initially started out as participating, starting slowly making more
> substantial contributions, and eventually were able to get WG drafts and
> RFCs. One person’s tourist is another person’s future contributor. I do
> agree though that our meeting selections and other processes should be
> geared towards those that contribute.
>
> Jari
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>
>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 02:52:45 -0800

On 7/17/16 2:35 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> certain to do long term damage to the functioning of the IETF, even
> though I completely respect the intention behind doing so. The problem
> is not that it's completely wrong in context, but that it will escape
> its context.

I think there's value in developing metrics around how many
people are doing what kinds of things.  It seems to me where
this went into the weeds was to start with the definitions
and treat them independently of metrics.  In some sense this
seems consistent with the IETF tradition of diving into
encoding formats before grappling with messages and protocol
semantics.  <no hat> I'd like to think there's some way of keeping
these definitions coupled to metrics and not having much of a
life outside them.</no hat>

Melinda

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 13:17:40 +0200

On July 17, 2016 12:45:20 PM Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
...

> certain to do long term damage to the functioning of the IETF,

+1
To add to this: I think  in the context of meetings venue selection we 
should continue to be inclusive of all participants.

It is when we talk ipr that the term Contributor becomes important.

Lou

> even though

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 08:05:14 -0400

That may be so, but this is a hard problem, and I have heard nothing from
any of this discussion so far that reflects any sociological insight into
the problem, which would be required to address it.

A shallow approach to the problem is likely to be so distorting that it
causes harm. That's the concern I'm trying to raise.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 01:38:29 +1200

"Observer" can be defined algorithmically (on mailing list or attended a meeting).
But we have to treat all observers as equal even though they might not be.
"Contributor" likewise (wrote to mailing list, authored or acknowledged
in a draft, mentioned in meeting minutes or jabber log).

Beyond that, any distinctions would be judgmental and we shouldn't
go there IMHO.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter
   (Don't blame me, I voted Remain.)

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 16:25:37 +0200

...
> and treat them independently of metrics.

+1

> On 7/17/2016 1:17 PM, Lou Berger wrote:

Yes, but...  as soon as one attempt to operationalize that view -- that 
is, to apply it to venue decisions-making -- the meaningful answer needs 
to be no.

Here's why...

The IETF f2f meetings have a purpose.  Generally that purpose is classed 
as getting work done.  Simplistically, that devolves to getting working 
groups to make progress on turning out their documents.  (To the extent 
that there are other, clear bits of 'output' that can be characterized 
and considered primary IETF work, that's fine.  Go ahead and expand the 
definition to include them.  But do this as an explicit, consensus-based 
exercise, separate from the details of a venue discussion.)

For the set of that primary work, we need to make sure that we have 
primary contributors able to be present.  The folks who do the work are 
the most important attendees, by this view.  Choices that reduce their 
presence reduces the primary work of the IETF.

A view that says all participants are equal leads to thinking and 
analyses that creates an averaging effect across all types of attendees, 
rather than focusing on these principal contributors.

That is, we need to distinguish between primary operational requirements 
for getting work done, versus a range of secondary benefits/goals that 
might be entirely laudable but really are secondary to the IETF.

To date, discussions have failed to make this distinction.

But wait, there's more...

We have a collection of participants who always show up.  In terms of 
determining venue locations, these folk are a distraction.  They will 
show up no matter what.  They are well-funded and well-traveled and, on 
the average, they like new and interesting places, independent of 
whether that serves the purpose of getting work done.  (They want to get 
work done, too, but my point is that they have different criteria for 
venues than do many other possible attendees.)

So besides the basic physical issues with possible venues, what we 
/should/ be considering is the effect the venue choices might have on 
those primary IETF contributors whose attendance is contingent.  They 
might or might not show up, and details about the venue might affect 
their decision.

Planning and review of meeting attendance in the IETF is usually in 
classic event management language.  More attendees is better, in terms 
of the absolute count.  It never distinguishes /who/ did or did not 
attend.  And there isn't a careful assessment of how productivity was 
affected.

So while, yes, distinguishing among different types of attendees suffers 
some risks of abuse, we need to keep in mind that /failing/ to attend to 
that difference has /already/ created its own kind of abuse.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:04:38 -0400

Hm.   When I've discussed this with IAOC people in the past, it's been
fairly clear that IETF in-person meetings have a very strong financial
aspect, and that is why keeping attendance numbers up is important.   IOW,
it's not because it helps to make for a more successful meeting.   That is
the specific reason that's been given why we don't do IETF in Minneapolis
in the winter anymore.

I would not describe this as abuse, although I sympathize.   I would
describe it as practicality.   We could of course transform the IETF into a
low-budget organization that doesn't have the same financial needs we
currently have, and that IETF could stop worrying about attendance fees and
focus on getting the right people into the room.

But even that runs up squarely against the problem that judging IETF by its
current participants excludes potential future participants toward whom
current data would not point.   This is a serious problem; many of the
people I know best in the IETF are olds like me, and we need more youngs.
Selecting for the status quo will eventually age the IETF into nonexistence.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> is, to apply it to venue decisions-making -- the meaningful answer needs to
> be no.
>
> Here's why...
>
> that there are other, clear bits of 'output' that can be characterized and
> considered primary IETF work, that's fine.  Go ahead and expand the
> primary contributors able to be present.  The folks who do the work are the
> most important attendees, by this view.  Choices that reduce their presence
> reduces the primary work of the IETF.
>
> A view that says all participants are equal leads to thinking and analyses
> that creates an averaging effect across all types of attendees, rather than
> focusing on these principal contributors.
>
> determining venue locations, these folk are a distraction.  They will show
> up no matter what.  They are well-funded and well-traveled and, on the
> average, they like new and interesting places, independent of whether that
> serves the purpose of getting work done.  (They want to get work done, too,
> but my point is that they have different criteria for venues than do many
> other possible attendees.)
>
> /should/ be considering is the effect the venue choices might have on those
> primary IETF contributors whose attendance is contingent.  They might or
> might not show up, and details about the venue might affect their decision.
>
> classic event management language.  More attendees is better, in terms of
> the absolute count.  It never distinguishes /who/ did or did not attend.
> And there isn't a careful assessment of how productivity was affected.
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:26:06 +0000 (UTC)

>Hm.   When I've discussed this with IAOC people in the past, it's been fairly clear that IETF in-person meetings have a very strong financial aspect, and that is >why keeping attendance numbers up is important.   IOW, it's not because it helps to make for a more successful meeting.   That is the specific reason that's been >given why we don't do IETF in Minneapolis in the winter anymore.

>I would not describe this as abuse, although I sympathize.   I would describe it as practicality.   We could of course transform the IETF into a low-budget >organization that doesn't have the same financial needs we currently have, and that IETF could stop worrying about attendance fees and focus on getting the right >people into the room.

>But even that runs up squarely against the problem that judging IETF by its current participants excludes potential future participants toward whom current data >would not point.   This is a serious problem; many of the people I know best in the IETF are olds like me, and we need more youngs.   Selecting for the status quo >will eventually age the IETF into nonexistence.

If I can take the conversation back to why this whole issue came up:

1.  There is some type of de facto definition of "participant" being used today.  How clear it is, is questionable.

2.  That definition appears to be a person who attends a physical IETF meeting.  Since there is no real examination of email list or remote hub participation that I am aware of.   There may be some "consideration" given to if RFCs or drafts are generated from a region or not.   

3.  The draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-01 contains:

"Increased participation in the IETF from those other regions, electronically or in person, could result in basic changes to the overall pattern, and we encourage those who would like for that to occur to encourage participation from those regions."

Additionally, participant and contributor are used throughout the draft in quite a few places without real definition.

4.  I believe our goal in picking venues should be to create the best standards that we can and to be as fair to everyone as we can.

5.  Counting only in person participation is not fair to emerging economies for whom participating via email is the way that most people will be able to participate.   

6.  So, I believe that we need to be clear on what we mean by participant, observer, contributor, etc.  and how we use the metrics.  If we don't define them explicitly, then the current unclear, undefined terms will continue to be used to make very important decisions.

Nalini  

...
>Yes, but...  as soon as one attempt to operationalize that view -- that is, to apply it to venue decisions-making -- the meaningful answer needs to be no.
>
>Here's why...
>
>The IETF f2f meetings have a purpose.  Generally that purpose is classed as getting work done.  Simplistically, that devolves to getting working groups to make progress on turning out their documents.  (To the extent that there are other, clear bits of 'output' that can be characterized and considered primary IETF work, that's fine.  Go ahead and expand the definition to include them.  But do this as an explicit, consensus-based exercise, separate from the details of a venue discussion.)
>
>For the set of that primary work, we need to make sure that we have primary contributors able to be present.  The folks who do the work are the most important attendees, by this view.  Choices that reduce their presence reduces the primary work of the IETF.
>
>A view that says all participants are equal leads to thinking and analyses that creates an averaging effect across all types of attendees, rather than focusing on these principal contributors.
>
>That is, we need to distinguish between primary operational requirements for getting work done, versus a range of secondary benefits/goals that might be entirely laudable but really are secondary to the IETF.
>
>We have a collection of participants who always show up.  In terms of determining venue locations, these folk are a distraction.  They will show up no matter what.  They are well-funded and well-traveled and, on the average, they like new and interesting places, independent of whether that serves the purpose of getting work done.  (They want to get work done, too, but my point is that they have different criteria for venues than do many other possible attendees.)
>
>So besides the basic physical issues with possible venues, what we /should/ be considering is the effect the venue choices might have on those primary IETF contributors whose attendance is contingent.  They might or might not show up, and details about the venue might affect their decision.
>
>Planning and review of meeting attendance in the IETF is usually in classic event management language.  More attendees is better, in terms of the absolute count.  It never distinguishes /who/ did or did not attend.  And there isn't a careful assessment of how productivity was affected.
>
>So while, yes, distinguishing among different types of attendees suffers some risks of abuse, we need to keep in mind that /failing/ to attend to that difference has /already/ created its own kind of abuse.
>
>d/
>
>-- 
>
>  Dave Crocker

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 18:10:22 -0400

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 4:26 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 6.  So, I believe that we need to be clear on what we mean by participant,
> observer, contributor, etc.  and how we use the metrics.  If we don't
> define them explicitly, then the current unclear, undefined terms will
> continue to be used to make very important decisions.
>

I think that what you are suggesting here is that we count non-in-person
attendees using some metrics.   You quoted this text from the draft:

"Increased participation in the IETF from those other regions,
electronically or in person, could result in basic changes to the overall
pattern, and we encourage those who would like for that to occur to
encourage participation from those regions."

It also says this:

" While somewhat obvious to most, it is important to note that IETF
   meetings serve all those who contribute to the development of IETF
   RFCs.  This includes those who attend meetings, from newcomer to
   frequent attendee, to those who participate remotely, and to those
   who don't attend but contribute to new RFCs.  Potential new
   contributors are also considered in the process."

The only thing I disagree with about what you said is that at present the
document doesn't make a distinction between participants and observers.   I
do not think it is wise to make such a distinction.

The next thing I would say is that you have some good ideas about how to
proceed with this, and I encourage you to send text to the document author,
who has been good about integrating suggestions people have offered.

However, I think there is simply no value either in not counting people who
attend in person or remotely, or in counting people who subscribe but do
not post.   In principle I see why this is interesting to you, but it's too
speculative, and I do not want to see such a distinction made in an IETF
consensus document.

If you disagree with me--that is, if you believe there is some value in
counting people who are observers and not participants--then I think you
need to seriously explore what that would look like and make a concrete
proposal that we can evaluate.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 16:24:50 -0700

Hello,

There was a survey about a meeting in South America in which the 
persons responding were asked to identify themselves as 
IAB/IESG/IAOC/NomCom member, WG Chair, author of a WG draft, or 
author of a draft and the persons in those groups were viewed as 
active participants.  One of the survey questions was about whether 
the person is likely to attend a meeting held in that place.  There 
was also a survey after that about preferred places in the usual regions.

In the messages to the mailing list there weren't any figures about 
mailing list participation (it is about 60% for this mailing 
list).  Here are some rough attendance numbers for IETF96:

   United States  37%
   Canada          3%
   China           8%
   India           2%
   Japan           2%
   South Korea     2%
   United Kingdom  5%
   France          4%
   Sweden          3%
   Finland         2%
   Netherlands     2%
   Israel          1%
   Brazil          1%

Regions for the last 20 meetings:

   North America  45%
   Europe         35%
   Asia           15%

Recent RFCs by region [1]:

   North America  78%
   Europe         60%
   Asia            8%

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. I used the numbers from Jari's statistics.  Note: some authors 
from a region appear in the percentage for another region.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:44:52 +0000 (UTC)

>However, I think there is simply no value either in not counting people who attend in person or remotely, or in counting people who subscribe but do not post.   In >principle I see why this is interesting to you, but it's too speculative, and I do not want to see such a distinction made in an IETF consensus document.
>If you disagree with me--that is, if you believe there is some value in counting people who are observers and not participants--then I think you need to seriously >explore what that would look like and make a concrete proposal that we can evaluate.

I think this is something we need to discuss.  We have the WG meeting later today.  My intent is to propose metrics that are fair to everyone.    
Being an "observer" is a good thing in my mind.  For many, it is the first step towards becoming a contributor.  But, if you have regions of the world who have many, many people such as China or India, then they can easily have 1,000 people in remote hubs watching as observers.  In fact, I hope very soon that this is the case.
Let's go one step at a time.  
Not to be too carried away but I will say that in this age where we unfortunately see far too many terrorist attacks and politicians fanning hatred of others from different cultures, if is great to be involved with an organization like the IETF where we find common ground with each other through our technical work and actively work to collaborate with people from other cultures.    Different perspectives make our standards stronger.   Different perspectives on the issue at hand will make the metrics better.   Let's discuss at the meeting and then Vinayak and I can think quietly about what to propose.
Thank you all for taking time to think about this topic.
Nalini

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:09:22 +1200

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 18/07/2016 10:10, Ted Lemon wrote:

...

Earlier, Ted also wrote:

> This is a serious problem; many of the

Exactly. I believe that is a very important reason for counting the people
who observe but do not (yet) contribute. I'm willing to bet that the majority
of people here today (where here != Berlin) observed IETF activity before
they started to contribute. The observers *are* the pool of future
contributors. If we can measure a large pool of observers in Ulan Bator,
we should then consider mentoring them as future contributors, and suggest
Ulan Bator to the meetings committee for future consideration.

  Brian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:54:21 +0200

Just FWIW ...

> Ulan Bator to the meetings committee for future consideration.

I heard more than one WG chair at the newcomer's meet and greet yesterday
telling first time attendees that they should focus on learning how things
work at the IETF and in the working groups they're interested in, and on
helping others, as a way of building credibility before they try to
contribute their own ideas.

So, I think Brian is exactly right here, and I don't think he's the only
one who is saying that.

Spencer

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:18:44 +0200

+1

- - -
Olaf M Kolkman
On Personal Title
Tweets from @Kolkman
- - -

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:04:04 +0200

I pulled together some attendee distributions recently, and thought
might be of interest. The data is the same as that is normally displayed
in the plenary. 

Attendees for  IETF 79-95
    47%    North America
    27%    Europe
    22%    Asia

*but* I think this is actually misleading, breaking the data down by
region yields more interesting results.

Asia Meeting Locations (HI excluded):
    35%    North America  
    20%    Europe  
    41%    Asia  

EU Locations:
    40%    North America
    39%    Europe  
    18%    Asia  

NA/US Locations (HI included):
    56%    North America
    22%    Europe  
    18%    Asia  

BA:
    44%    North America
    23%    Europe
    14%    Asia
    16%    South America, Latin America, Caribbean

Lou

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:55:09 -0700

Hi Lou,
>might be of interest. The data is the same as that is normally displayed

{snip]

>region yields more interesting results.

Yes.  The results can be interpreted in various ways.  One of the 
questions is whether to use the attendees figures.

I watched a session for an Area today.  The persons at the microphone 
are from two of the usual regions.  That is the 
participation/contribution at a meeting angle.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 13:23:13 +0200

On 7/18/2016 8:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> who observe but do not (yet) contribute.

Certainly.

However consider a meeting that was very successful at drawing a very 
large number of such folk, but failed to draw many of the folk who are 
'contingent' core contributors.  That is, the folk who don't 
automatically show up at every meeting, but who are doing core work in 
the ietf, and choose /not/ to show up for this particular meeting.

The meeting will have good attendance, good revenue, but poor 
productivity.  The primary work of the IETF will suffer.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:22:58 -0400

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:23:13PM +0200, Dave Crocker wrote:

> However consider a meeting that was very successful at drawing a very large
> number of such folk, but failed to draw many of the folk who are
> 'contingent' core contributors.  That is, the folk who don't automatically
> show up at every meeting, but who are doing core work in the ietf, and
> choose /not/ to show up for this particular meeting.
> 
> The meeting will have good attendance, good revenue, but poor productivity.
> The primary work of the IETF will suffer.

I agree that would probably be bad.

This is the reason that I think having objectives rather than rules is
important.  There is, I suspect, no way to specify a rule that will
tell us how to pick the right mix among these various kinds of people
attending a meeting.

More importantly, however, I'm worried that we're optimizing for a
case that is not too likely.  I'm trying to imagine the case where we
manage to set up a meeting that attracts the always-attend people, and
a large number of people who were not too actively contributing but
who start to as a result of the meeting, but we have poor attendance
from these 'contingent' contributors.  Has that ever happened?  (In
order to answer that, of course, we'd have to identify these classes
and then count from the historical recods.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:35:16 +0200

On 7/18/2016 2:22 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> important.

That sounds reasonable.  Not sure how to apply it to the current 
discussion.  Broadly, I'd take it as advice that this current effort 
needs to target broad guidance (objectives) for use by the IAOC, rather 
than fine-grained and rigid details (rules)?

> from these 'contingent' contributors.

My impression is that BA is a reasonable example, although apparently 
the actual attendance wasn't great either.  However BA was chosen with 
the primary goal of recruiting from South America and in spite of 
straightforward analyses that were offered, showing the inconvenience 
and expense that such a venue would impose, presumably mitigating 
attendance by core folk.

Again, the essential suggestion I'm trying to make is that we seek to 
understand and accommodate the contingent core contributors and treat 
all other factors as secondary.  What venues make it more likely for 
such folk to attend and what venues make it less likely?  And the 
answers need to be obtained empirically -- asking them ahead of time and 
asking them post-hoc -- rather than by bench analysis.

Once we understand and satisfy that group, it's fine to /also/ satisfy 
other, secondary goals.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 01:21:18 +1200

On 19/07/2016 00:35, Dave Crocker wrote:
> That sounds reasonable.  Not sure how to apply it to the current discussion.  Broadly, I'd take it as advice that this current
> effort needs to target broad guidance (objectives) for use by the IAOC, rather than fine-grained and rigid details (rules)?
> 
> 
> My impression is that BA is a reasonable example, although apparently the actual attendance wasn't great either.  However BA was
> chosen with the primary goal of recruiting from South America and in spite of straightforward analyses that were offered,
> showing the inconvenience and expense that such a venue would impose, presumably mitigating attendance by core folk.
> 
> Again, the essential suggestion I'm trying to make is that we seek to understand and accommodate the contingent core
> contributors and treat all other factors as secondary.  

The problem with that rather binary statement is that it doesn't allow
any space for sustainability of the IETF. There's no reason to presume (in
fact, it would be discriminatory to assume) that the next generation of core
contributors will come from the same geographical areas as the current and
previous generations. IMHO we actually need a double optimisation - make sure
the current work gets done and make sure the next generation is attracted and
enthused.

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:51:41 +0200

On 7/18/2016 3:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> any space for sustainability of the IETF.

That's quite simply wrong.  It doesn't reflect the substance of what I 
wrote and it doesn't reflect the substance of IETF history.

The apparent premise to your error is that experimentally going to new 
venues, with a recruiting goal, is essential for acquiring new 
participants.  Besides having no empirical basis going forward, it's 
empirically false based on the history of the IETF's having managed to 
acquire new participants over the last 25 years, without relying on 
these experimental marketing ventures.

It also misses that we already have an example of expanding the range of 
meeting choices, to include a new area, according to a different model, 
namely one of observing increasing participation from an area and 
deciding we should go there.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:01:41 +0200

It's also worth asking whether the fact that contingent attenders don't
come and this makes the meeting less productive is a bug, rather than a
feature.   Personally, speaking as someone who has only attended remotely
once, I find this seriously problematic.

Also, FWIW, BA was really easy to get to for NA people.   If you go to
Europe and you didn't go, "it was hard to get to" is a pretty thin reason.
  If you go to Asia and you didn't go, "it was hard to get to" is no excuse
at all.   Of course, people come for a lot of reasons.   But I don't think
that we should encourage the idea that if someone doesn't feel like going
to IETF in some new location, even though in principle they could, that's a
reason for us not to go.

Instead, we should address whatever impediments exist (and they do exist)
to participant of contingent attendees who increase the productivity of
meetings they do attend.

(Side note: do we have any data at all that supports the supposition that
this is a real problem, and not just confirmation bias?)

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> discussion.  Broadly, I'd take it as advice that this current
> > effort needs to target broad guidance (objectives) for use by the IAOC,
> rather than fine-grained and rigid details (rules)?
> >
> >
> the actual attendance wasn't great either.  However BA was
> > chosen with the primary goal of recruiting from South America and in
> spite of straightforward analyses that were offered,
> > showing the inconvenience and expense that such a venue would impose,
> presumably mitigating attendance by core folk.
> >
> understand and accommodate the contingent core

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 02:20:06 +1200

On 19/07/2016 01:51, Dave Crocker wrote:
> That's quite simply wrong.  It doesn't reflect the substance of what I wrote 

Well, your sentence that I quoted was unequivocal.

> and it doesn't reflect the substance of IETF history.

No, and it wasn't the IETF that propagated the Internet around the
world. So we now have a situation where the Internet is deployed pretty
much everywhere but the standards and best practices are written by
people from a distinct subset of "everywhere".

> The apparent premise to your error is that experimentally going to new venues, with a recruiting goal, is essential for
> acquiring new participants.

No, I didn't say or mean to imply that. I said that we need to optimize
for more than one criterion at the same time. When we meet in region X we
get more newcomers from that region; that's obvious to those of us who
are involved in the mentoring program. So by going further afield, we will
more or less automatically get a wider spread of newcomers.  But I don't
think that justifies going to remote and inconvenient locations. It might
justify going a bit outside our comfort zone.

> Besides having no empirical basis going forward, it's empirically false based on the history of the
> IETF's having managed to acquire new participants over the last 25 years, without relying on these experimental marketing ventures.

Which ventures do you mean?

> It also misses that we already have an example of expanding the range of meeting choices, to include a new area, according to a
> different model, namely one of observing increasing participation from an area and deciding we should go there.

In other words, we've been riding on the coat-tails of the organisations
that have extended the community world-wide. But that phase of geographical
expansion of the Internet is almost over now. If we want to attract
future participants from non-traditional geographies we probably have to do
something new. I am not sure what.

    Brian

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:20:05 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 06:51 18-07-2016, Dave Crocker wrote:
>The apparent premise to your error is that experimentally going to 
>new venues, with a recruiting goal, is essential for acquiring new 
>empirically false based on the history of the IETF's having managed 
>to acquire new participants over the last 25 years, without relying 
>on these experimental marketing ventures.

According to the numbers which I posted earlier, over two thirds of 
the relevant technical documents are from one or two regions.  The 
issue with going to new venues is that there is no data to show 
whether the IETF has attracted new participation or not.  It puts 
that region at a disadvantage as it is not possible to show that 
there has been new participation when participation is not 
counted.  It is possible to count whether there are new attendees 
from that region.  Is that being counted?

>It also misses that we already have an example of expanding the 
>range of meeting choices, to include a new area, according to a 
>different model, namely one of observing increasing participation 
>from an area and deciding we should go there.

That would mean having participation from a new region now, deciding 
about that, and then having a meeting in that new region in over four years.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:39:22 +0100

Hi,

As a relative newcomer to the IETF and a back-ground (mostly) in human
rights, there are three observations I would want to share with you
regarding the discussion of the venue selection. In particular, the
discussion surrounding not seeing venue selection as a tool for outreach.

1. Many of the arguments seem centered around the notion that as we don’t
have the metrics to establish that going to place X means X-ians (people
from place X) become sustained contributors – we should not go. Two things
about this:

A. if we don’t have these metrics, the argument that going to X to get the
X-ians involved does work is equally true. Additionally, we do have numbers
that seem to suggest that when in X, for that particular meeting more
X-ians participate. Sustaining their participation after wards has proven
difficult. But that is also likely related to other barriers X-ians
experience (whether they be travel costs, participation fees, language, or
cultural and social barriers etc). This is to say we need to make sure that
when trying to measure if going to X gets X-ians involved perhaps we need
to make sure that we measure engagement is measured in a *longitudinal* way,
that takes into account what other factors hamper sustained participation.
But I am getting ahead of myself.

B. Several people on this list have made the argument that going to X does
not automatically lead to meaningful participation of X-ians, yet as long
as we can’t even agree on the metrics to define contribution perhaps we
should be open to the possibility that going to X does (or might) attract
new people who stay on.

2. A lot of the discussion continues the notion that venue selection should
be geared towards ensuring a group of core people show up. More people is
not necessarily qualitatively better. While this is certainly true in many
contexts, there is a real danger in sustaining this bias towards the
existing group. Namely, that it undermines our ability to attract new
people, especially of the non-white, non-male, non-Global North type. I see
a chicken and egg problem here. Or a reoccurring loop if you will: we
select in favor of the existing group --> we can’t seem to attract new
people --> we select in favor of the existing group --> we can’t seem to
attract new people --> we select in favor of the existing group etc.

My guess would be that the needs of potential new people are not met by the
outcomes of the current selection bias in location. Let's say you are from
X in Africa. Traveling to the IETF meetings means always going to a
different continent, for which you likely need a visa, for which certainly
the travel expenses are going to be through the roof, and even the costs of
room and board are going to be steep.

We seem unwilling to accept such conditions for ourselves, but are readily
willing to impose them on potential new participants, who are often already
comparatively less resourced, and than keep asking ourselves why so few
people from X come, and if they do come why they don’t stay.

3. Now before people tumble over themselves to tell me I am wrong, and that
the IETF is not a political human rights organization, that outreach is not
what we do: let me assure you that I understand that. But a third
observation I would like to present is that I have seen very little
discussion about the politics of representation, when it comes to venue
selection. Selecting a venue is about contracts, about negotiations; about
what venues exist that can fit our growing body of participants. Sure. But,
whether we like it or not, it also makes a statement about what we find
important.

Structurally not going to certain regions of the world is a statement that,
at least to my untrained eye, sends a not so great statement. Of course,
there are practicalities to venue selection but there is also a
performative aspect to it. Venue selection communicates something about how
the IETF sees X, X-ians and the suitability of their country to host an
IETF meeting. Which why the efforts by several within the IETF and the ISOC
fellowship and outreach are so welcome. Which is also why it was so great
that the IETF went to Buenos Aires. These kinds of initiatives might incur
additional work and costs for some people that more typical locations
(Prague, Berlin, anywhere USA) don’t. But it also greatly reduces the costs
for the people we want to attract. And shows that IETF is as global as the
Internet, as global as the standards it develops, and as global as the
Internet community.

These are just my 2-cents, or 3 observations if you will, but I think it is
interesting to parse this issue from a different perspective. And look at
how venue selection plays a role both in the optics of and the
opportunities for attracting new participants, especially from regions that
currently see little participation.

Best,

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 5:20 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> acquire new participants over the last 25 years, without relying on these
>> experimental marketing ventures.
>>
>
> According to the numbers which I posted earlier, over two thirds of the
> relevant technical documents are from one or two regions.  The issue with
> going to new venues is that there is no data to show whether the IETF has
> attracted new participation or not.  It puts that region at a disadvantage
> as it is not possible to show that there has been new participation when
> participation is not counted.  It is possible to count whether there are
> new attendees from that region.  Is that being counted?
>
>> namely one of observing increasing participation from an area and deciding
>> we should go there.
>>
>
> That would mean having participation from a new region now, deciding about
> that, and then having a meeting in that new region in over four years.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

-- 
Corinne J.N. Cath

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:59:53 +0200

Thanks for writing that. I think it's a good analysis. However, I can't
imagine where in Africa we could realistically go that would help. Would it
help Africans generally to go to Dubai, for example?  What about Windhoek?
Johannesburg?  Africa is a big continent, but perhaps in my ignorance, I
don't know where we could go and get work done that is central. Remember
that you need a reasonable contingent of IETF regulars to show up or you
aren't actually helping the newcomers to participate.

On Jul 21, 2016 20:39, "Corinne Cath" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 2. A lot of the discussion continues the notion that venue selection
> should be geared towards ensuring a group of core people show up. More
> people is not necessarily qualitatively better. While this is certainly
> true in many contexts, there is a real danger in sustaining this bias
> towards the existing group. Namely, that it undermines our ability to
> attract new people, especially of the non-white, non-male, non-Global North
> type. I see a chicken and egg problem here. Or a reoccurring loop if you
> will: we select in favor of the existing group --> we can’t seem to
> attract new people --> we select in favor of the existing group --> we
> can’t seem to attract new people --> we select in favor of the existing
> group etc.
>
>
> My guess would be that the needs of potential new people are not met by
> the outcomes of the current selection bias in location. Let's say you are
> from X in Africa. Traveling to the IETF meetings means always going to a
> 3. Now before people tumble over themselves to tell me I am wrong, and
> that the IETF is not a political human rights organization, that outreach
> is not what we do: let me assure you that I understand that. But a third
> Structurally not going to certain regions of the world is a statement
> that, at least to my untrained eye, sends a not so great statement. Of
> course, there are practicalities to venue selection but there is also a
> These are just my 2-cents, or 3 observations if you will, but I think it
> is interesting to parse this issue from a different perspective. And look
> at how venue selection plays a role both in the optics of and the

---

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:18:29 +0100

Some comments in line :)

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thanks for writing that. I think it's a good analysis.
>
​Thank you​, much appreciated.

> However, I can't imagine where in Africa we could realistically go that
> would help. Would it help Africans generally to go to Dubai, for example?
> What about Windhoek?  Johannesburg?  Africa is a big continent, but perhaps
> in my ignorance, I don't know where we could go and get work done that is
> central.
>
​I don't have any silver bullets here either. But I am sure there are
people from the region on whose expertise we could rely for some answers to
that question. However, I also chose to focus on X-ians from X throughout
the email because I think, at this point, it is too easy to get bogged in
the complications surrounding certain locations. Before that happens, I
think it might be interesting to go back to some of the meta-questions
surrounding the opportunities and optics of venue selection. ​

> Remember that you need a reasonable contingent of IETF regulars to show up
> or you aren't actually helping the newcomers to participate.
>
​Very fair point. But I believe a better middle ground than the current
situation can be found, with regards to deciding whose needs to consider
first in venue selection. Because what is all this amazing knowledge that
so many IETF-ers have worth, if it does not get passed on to the next
generation, including those not of the usual backgrounds, regions and
organizations?

Best,

>> A. if we don’t have these metrics, the argument that going to X to get
>> the X-ians involved does work is equally true. Additionally, we do have
>> numbers that seem to suggest that when in X, for that particular meeting
>> more X-ians participate. Sustaining their participation after wards has
>> proven difficult. But that is also likely related to other barriers X-ians
>> B. Several people on this list have made the argument that going to X
>> does not automatically lead to meaningful participation of X-ians, yet as
>> long as we can’t even agree on the metrics to define contribution perhaps
>> we should be open to the possibility that going to X does (or might)
>> attract new people who stay on.
>>
>>
>>
>> We seem unwilling to accept such conditions for ourselves, but are
>> readily willing to impose them on potential new participants, who are often
>> already comparatively less resourced, and than keep asking ourselves why so
>> few people from X come, and if they do come why they don’t stay.
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Corinne J.N. Cath

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:53:14 +1200

Hi Corinne,

Focussing on just one word:

On 22/07/2016 06:39, Corinne Cath wrote:

...
> what we do: 

Actually I was in a meeting this morning discussing the future of education
and mentoring in the IETF where we talked quite a bit about "outreach".
I concluded that it has multiple meanings in our context, that we do them
all (for various meanings of "we"), and that they're important:

1) outreach to other organizations, such as other SDOs, which we tend to call
'liaison' and is run by the IAB;
2) outreach to other technical communities such as network operators, which
tends to be run by relevant people in IETF hot seats (WG chairs, ADs, etc.);
3) outreach to potential and brand-new IETF participants (the topic here,
I think, but very much the business of the education and mentoring activity);
4) a more abstract kind of developmental outreach to society as a whole,
done by ISOC - although the Fellows program is certainly very concrete.

So "we" certainly do outreach, but probably not enough of it. Venue selection
has its role here, but it's far from the only aspect.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:58:05 +0200

Yes, absolutely. (I had trouble not reading X-ians as Christians :)

I think that things like the Buenos Aires IETF are definitely worth doing.
And I have a friend in Windhoek I'd love to have an excuse to visit. If the
bar for "good meeting" is that a quorum of regulars shows up, as definitely
happened in Buenos Aires, that opens up a lot of possibilities.  There were
a few faces missing in Buenos Aires, but not so many as to render the
meeting useless.

On Jul 21, 2016 21:18, "Corinne Cath" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Remember that you need a reasonable contingent of IETF regulars to show
>> up or you aren't actually helping the newcomers to participate.
>>
>>> 1. Many of the arguments seem centered around the notion that as we
>>> don’t have the metrics to establish that going to place X means X-ians
>>> (people from place X) become sustained contributors – we should not go. Two
>>> things about this:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It also misses that we already have an example of expanding the range
>>>>> of meeting choices, to include a new area, according to a different model,

---

From: Corinne Cath <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:02:25 +0100

> Yes, absolutely. (I had trouble not reading X-ians as Christians :)
​Apologies, not meant us such. Just a non-native speaker hickup I am
afraid.​

​:)​

> a few faces missing in Buenos Aires, but not so many as to render the
​+ 1​

>>>> can’t seem to attract new people --> we select in favor of the
>>>> existing group etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These are just my 2-cents, or 3 observations if you will, but I think
>>>> it is interesting to parse this issue from a different perspective. And
>>>> look at how venue selection plays a role both in the optics of and the
>>>>> the relevant technical documents are from one or two regions.  The issue
>>>>> with going to new venues is that there is no data to show whether the IETF
>>>>> has attracted new participation or not.  It puts that region at a
>>>>> disadvantage as it is not possible to show that there has been new
>>>>> participation when participation is not counted.  It is possible to count
>>>>> whether there are new attendees from that region.  Is that being counted?
>>>>>

-- 
Corinne J.N. Cath

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:31:46 -0700

Hi Corrine,
At 11:39 21-07-2016, Corinne Cath wrote:
>As a relative newcomer to the IETF and a 
>back-ground (mostly) in human rights, there are 
>three observations I would want to share with 
>you regarding the discussion of the venue 
>selection. In particular, the discussion 
>surrounding not seeing venue selection as a tool for outreach.

Thank you for bring in a fresh perspective to the discussion.

>1. Many of the arguments seem centered around 
>the notion that as we don't have the metrics to 
>establish that going to place X means X-ians 
>(people from place X) become sustained 
>contributors – we should not go. Two things about this:

Yes.

>A. if we don't have these metrics, the argument 
>that going to X to get the X-ians involved does 
>work is equally true. Additionally, we do have 
>numbers that seem to suggest that when in X, for 
>that particular meeting more X-ians participate. 
>Sustaining their participation after wards has 
>proven difficult. But that is also likely 
>related to other barriers X-ians experience 
>(whether they be travel costs, participation 
>fees, language, or cultural and social barriers 
>etc). This is to say we need to make sure that 
>when trying to measure if going to X gets X-ians 
>involved perhaps we need to make sure that we 
>measure engagement is measured in a longitudinal 
>way, that takes into account what other factors 
>hamper sustained participation. But I am getting ahead of myself.

The numbers show that there is an increase in 
attendance from people from the country when the 
meeting is held in their country.  I agree that 
it is worthwhile to get some measure of 
engagement.  I previously commented about that in 
another context ( 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82992.html ).

>B. Several people on this list have made the 
>argument that going to X does not automatically 
>lead to meaningful participation of X-ians, yet 
>as long as we can't even agree on the metrics to 
>define contribution perhaps we should be open to 
>the possibility that going to X does (or might) attract new people who stay on.

Yes.

>2. A lot of the discussion continues the notion 
>that venue selection should be geared towards 
>ensuring a group of core people show up. More 
>people is not necessarily qualitatively better. 
>While this is certainly true in many contexts, there is a real
>  danger in sustaining this bias towards the 
> existing group. Namely, that it undermines our 
> ability to attract new people, especially of 
> the [removed], non-male, non-Global North type. 
> I see a chicken and egg problem here. Or a 
> reoccurring loop if you will: we select in 
> favor of the existing group --> we can't seem 
> to attract new people --> we select in favor of 
> the existing group --> we can't seem to attract 
> new people --> we select in favor of the existing group etc.

Yes.

>My guess would be that the needs of potential 
>new people are not met by the outcomes of the 
>current selection bias in location. Let's say 
>you are from X in Africa. Traveling to the IETF 
>meetings means always going to a different 
>continent, for which you likely need a visa, for 
>which certainly the travel expenses are going to 
>be through the roof, and even the costs of room 
>and board are going to be steep.

It can mean going through one continent to get to 
another continent where the meeting is held.  It 
can be very difficult to be allowed entry to the 
country where the meeting is being held.

>We seem unwilling to accept such conditions for 
>ourselves, but are readily willing to impose 
>them on potential new participants, who are 
>often already comparatively less resourced, and 
>than keep asking ourselves why so few people 
>from X come, and if they do come why they don't stay.

Yes.

>3. Now before people tumble over themselves to 
>tell me I am wrong, and that the IETF is not a 
>political human rights organization, that 
>outreach is not what we do: let me assure you 
>that I understand that. But a third observation 
>I would like to present is that I have seen very 
>little discussion about the politics of 
>representation, when it comes to venue 
>selection. Selecting a venue is about contracts, 
>about negotiations; about what venues exist that 
>can fit our growing body of participants. Sure. 
>But, whether we like it or not, it also makes a 
>statement about what we find important.

I gather that the above refers to something 
similar to 
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/comparative-politics/politics-representation-global-age-identification-mobilization-and-adjudication 

>Structurally not going to certain regions of the 
>world is a statement that, at least to my 
>untrained eye, sends a not so great statement. 
>Of course, there are practicalities to

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy