I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:28 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
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
_______________________________________________
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