Jay, Please take this as the constructive comment and suggestion it is intended to be rather than as a complaint, but, for the future, please think about saying something closer to "hear from people who represent as broad a spectrum of IETF participants as possible" rather than "...as many". If the survey gets answers from only a limited and fairly homogeneous subset of the community (maybe even a subset similar to those who actively participate in most or all process-oriented WGs), it tells you what that group of people think but, maybe, much less about the views of the overall community. And, unless the size of that group is measured in the low thousands, it doesn't tell you much about representativeness. That, in turn, creates a challenge for which neither I nor the survey research community have easy answers: how do you tell whether the survey responses come from a representative sample of the community or just a small, somewhat homogeneous, group and do so without questions that would be intrusive and possibly problematic from a privacy standpoint (the location, gender, and number of meetings attended questions that are asked, help, but only a little bit. thanks, john --On Tuesday, August 5, 2025 13:53 +1200 Jay Daley <exec-director@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is a final reminder. > > Please take a few minutes to fill out our post-meeting survey for > IETF 123 Madrid as this provides vital data to help us plan future > meetings. We really need to hear from as many participants as > possible: > > https://ietf.iad1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bJZHjw5u4PnHA9g
