Dear Michael;
On Aug 11, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Marshall -
I would suggest that given you've chosen the location based on the assumption
that Bob's 1/1/1 model is most
The dates are independent of locations, so this does not depend at all on the
model chosen.
To be precise, we have up until now assumed a 3/2/1 model, but it doesn't
matter here.
correct and that its possible that a review of the data relative to more
persistent attendees or more active attendees may suggest a different model,
that you toll closing the "last call" until the data is provided and reviewed
by the community. E.g. Making a choice based on incorrect or incomplete
data is worse than delaying the choice a few months especially since we're
talking about dates 4-7 years out.
I think that changing the meeting seasons is not trivial, and not something
that I would do causally. There are lots of contingent factors (what other SDOs
schedule their meetings around us, and which might we collide with, how would
Hotel pricing and availability change, etc., etc.), and we might not be aware
of all of them. While you and I might not plan our lives that far out, SDOs and
Hotels and even companies participating in the IETF, do. As it is, making the
advance schedules is some work, but of course, as we assume that things more or
less repeat, we have running code on what issues to look at.
So, if we want to go to a January / May / September cycle starting in 2014, I
think we need to put some due diligence into it, at a higher level of effort
than we did for the existing dates. This is work, and I couldn't recommend
doing it unless there was a solid consensus in favor of at least considering
(if not making) the move.
Regards
Marshall
[My assumption that you've based the choice of locations on the 1/1/1 model
may be incorrect, but seems supported by the presentations and comments]
Mike
At 02:48 PM 8/10/2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Aug 10, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
in fairness, anyplace we don't yet have a contract is open to discussion.
With care and in some cases communication with other organizations, we
could change the announced dates. They were mostly picked out of the air
("could we do X? Well, nobody on the clash list has chosen it yet...") in
the first place :-)
On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
FWIW, I do think that choice of July as the meeting time is not the best
in terms of avoiding collisions with people's vacations. Say, early June
or September would probably have less conflicts with family vacations,
daycare shutdown periods, and the like. It would probably make it possible
for more people to join the meeting. Of course, any change in the meeting
dates would be slow. The current meeting calendar goes to November 2017...
We just put the 2014-2017 calendar out for comment in May.
Just as for any last call, it would be better if these issues were brought
up before it closes...
Regards
Marshall
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
