It can, of course. Use D'Hondt or something to pick the next meeting venue.
Stephan
On 9.1.2010 08:24 , "Ross Callon" <rcallon(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net> wrote:
Why does this have to be precisely on an integer-number year boundary?
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf