The IETF should indeed meet where our participants come from. That
was my initial comment (from the mike) on "are we from Latin America,
Africa, or Antarctica?" I think that remains to be shown.
That said, I'll remind you of the demographics of this particular
meeting, working from memory from the slide Brian showed Wednesday
evening. It looked to me like this meeting was a tad less than half
from North America, perhaps 20% from Japan and China, and most of the
rest from Europe. That argues for roughly half of our meetings being
in North America, a meeting every other year in Asia, and the rest in
Europe. What Brian then has to ask is "what are the trend lines". My
understanding from his behavior (we haven't actually had this
conversation) is that he thinks we are trending towards being roughly
equally from those regions, and therefore is trying to distribute
meetings roughly evenly among them.
On Jul 14, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Scott W Brim wrote:
On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
Once upon a time,
the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from
Europe,
a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the
US,
so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in
random places, and the lion's share in the US. Those statistics are
essentially meaningless now.
Why are they meaningless? The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where
the participants are, wherever that might be. I still like your
algorithm.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf