To add my 5 cents as well:
In some ways the continued discussion of this topic reflects the fact
that we are moving from one equilibrium to an other. I still remember
the discussions we saw before we moved to 3:2:1.
Although it may soften the argument to start with my personal
conclusion, but it may be easier to read:
My vote is strongly in favor of 1:1:1.
3:2:2 can also be a solution for the next interval of 2-4 years
(effectively the difference to 1:1:1 is not that big).
(And actually the problem raised by others with the time horizon of 2.3
years for 3:2:2 is not a big deal - we have only three meetings a years
so whether we plan for 6 events or seven events shouldn't break
anybody's brain to solve that.)
Now for the reasons:
1. First, the location _is_ a significant barrier to entry for newcomers
and other contributors. Optimizing only for the current status quo does
create a strong perpetual cycle of self reinforcing structure of
contributors from the favored location(s). Consider that contributors
usually start as newcomers, attend several meetings, then write a draft,
join more WGs and maybe chair a WG. But if you make it hard for
newcomers to attend several meetings they are at a severe disadvantage
to become future contributors. Part of the value of the IETF derives
from its global scope, it's global acceptance and the wide range of
ideas and involving the best minds on this planet to solve our problems.
If we exclude people from this process we deprive ourselves from part of
this rich resource. This leads me to the first part of an answer: we
need a wide inclusion and allow future contributions from all areas
(which requires meetings on different continents to some degree).
2. Cost for contributors: Having said that, of course we need to
consider the costs for the current contributors doing our work today.
For most current contributors their experience allows them to judge and
to justify higher travel costs (as they come by long-distance travel)
much better as they can already demonstrate the benefits of working with
the IETF to their employers or for themselves.
3. As I said at the beginning, we are not in a stable equilibrium. Many
of the arguments to keep 3:2:1 or for 2:1:1 may be true today if we
would be, but this is not the case. We are moving from a mono-polar (US
centric view) to a multi-polar and someday hopefully truly international
work form. Before we moved from 4:1:1 to 3:2:1, the percentages were not
yet fully in favor of the move either, but they significantly shifted
over the last years. And they will continue to shift further. So we
should consider that although currently 1:1:1 is not representing the
current ratios, it may well represent the future ratios if we allow them
to go this way. And that is what we should do. We should avoid to lock
ourselves into a biased situation where travel costs reinforce the
status quo and deprive us of a future wider international participation.
So my proposal would be to balance the cost pressures of current
contributors with the future contributions we expect from the different
areas and choose a future oriented ratio with 1:1:1. (North
America:Europe:Asia)
Many greetings, Tobias
On 08/30/2010 08:28 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf