On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
Why does this have to be precisely on an integer-number year boundary?
It doesn't have to be. It could, in principle, be anything that the community
wants.
My real point here, which I may not have gotten across, is that meeting
scheduling is a fairly blunt tool. The community cannot expect too much
precision in this. At any time there are meetings at various degrees of being
scheduled some years out, meetings have had to be rescheduled (i.e.,
prospective venues have fallen through) in the past and likely will again in
the future, and external events also sometimes constrain when we can meet
where. If the desired X:Y:Z goal is not being obtained all the IAOC can do is
to change or swap meeting locations, and there are generally strong constraints
on that (i.e., some meetings may be firmly scheduled some time out, there may
be cancelation penalties on some Hotel contracts, certain sponsors may insist
on "their" meeting being in a certain location at a certain time, etc.). Then
the IAOC is open to complaints such as "there are 2 meetings in Region X back
to back", or "there are no meetings in Region Y at all this year."
So, I would recommend simple goals with short repeat cycles, such as 3:2:1 or
1:1:1, and also repeat cycles that commensurate with a integer number of years
(where that integer is 1, 2 or 3). I don't think the system is likely to
deliver more fine grained performance than that.
Regards
Marshall
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:56 AM
To: Scott Brim
Cc: Adrian Farrel; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On Aug 28, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
On 08/28/2010 12:28 EDT, Adrian Farrel wrote:
And even closer to 3:2:2 ?
I think that people have unreasonable expectations about what we can do here.
There are 3 meetings per year, and 3 meeting regions being considered, and we
are generally considering something between 1 and 3 years out at any time.
Suppose that the time horizon is 2 years. Then, an equal meeting schedule is
2:2:2 (which is equivalent to 1:1:1, of course).
If we shift one meeting, we have
3:2:1 (the current proposal) - or 1:0.66:0.33
If we shift 2 meetings, we have
4:1:1 - or 1:0.25:0.25
and that's it. Without having no meetings in some region, 1:1:1, 3:2:1, or
4:1:1 is all we can chose between with a 2 year horizon.
(You have to chunk the meetings somehow to get these ratios; doing by
calendar years is a very reasonable chunk that fits well with the way that
meetings are scheduled.)
Suppose that our time horizon is 3 years - then an equal meeting schedule is
3:3:3 and we can shift meetings to produce
4:3:2 - or 1:0.75:0.5
4:4:1 - or 1:1:0.25
5:2:2 - or 1:0.4:0.4
5:3:1 - or 1:0.6:0.2
6:2:1 - or 1:0.33:0.16
7:1:1 - or 1:0.14:0.14
and that's it (without dropping some region entirely).
So, for example, instead of 3:2:2 (or 1:0.66:0.66) I would recommend 4:3:2
for the next 3 years
(the closest triplet using an absolute value sum metric on the differences).
4:3:2 would be easier to do than 3:2:2 based on the way we schedule and
review meeting locations.
Now, of course, meeting locations do get moved, and 4:3:2 might easily turn
into 4:4:1 or 3:3:3 based on contingencies.
I do not think it is reasonable to apply a time horizon of > 3 years to IETF
meeting locations. Attendance is changing too rapidly for that.
Regards
Marshall
+0.2
_______________________________________________
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