If the pattern was static, that might matter, but using 3:2:2 creates a
2.3 year cycle while 2:1:1 depends on a 1.3 year cycle. An easier pattern
to adjust to as it changes. The cycle used should resemble the time period
for which future venues are chosen.
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Adrian Farrel wrote:
And even closer to 3:2:2 ?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Hartman"
<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
To: "Noel Chiappa" <jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
"Noel" == Noel Chiappa
<jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu> writes:
>> I suspect that a more nuanced analysis would have this as "1.7 and
>> shrinking : 1 and stable : 1 and stable".
Noel> and his conclusion:
>> I would support 2:1:1 for the present, with an intention to review
that
>> in 2-3 years.
Noel> seems to me to be right on, given those 1.7:1:1 numbers - 1.7 is
closer to 2
Noel> than it is to 1...
+1
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf