Re: IETF Attendance by continent

Hi Marshall - 

A method that works for any ratio using running totals:

Let NAp, Ep, Ap be the value of each regions part of the ratio (e.g. NAp = 1.7 
for a 1.7:1:1)

Set NAt(0), Et(0), At(0) = 0

Set NAs= NAp/(NAp+Ep + Ap)  (basically the decimal version of the ratio), 
repeat for Es and As


For each meeting 'i' let NAt(i) = NAt(i-1) +NAs - (if meeting in NA ? 1 : 0)
and repeat the same for each region.  [Basically add the meeting credit XXs 
(NAs, Es, As) to the running credit total and subtract one from the credit if 
the meeting is held in the region]

XXt(i) gives you the number of meetings "owed" to that region - or if negative, 
the surplus.

This is easiest to see if you map it out on a spread sheet.  


A simple model is to attempt first to plan a meeting in the region with the 
greatest arrears falling back to the next greatest etc.



Any luck in deriving the other data I asked about?  E.g. looking only at the 
Nomcom qualified and the "contributors"?

Thanks - Mike





At 12:24 PM 9/1/2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> 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

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf