On 9/1/10 8:24 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
Why does this have to be precisely on an integer-number year boundary?
There are several methods one could use. propose one.
meetings 80 81 82 85 and 86 already have locations so I'm guessing the
experiment starts in earnest in august 2013.
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