Joel,
This isn't 100% true. While our dates are not "fungible," we could
*consider* a date move, say +/- a week *if* this would give us
availability in a certain location. This would of course be the
*exception* and not the rule (which you have correct), but *if* we
found that, say, moving IETF 127 one week would make everything work
perfectly, then, yes, we *could* do it. Of course, this would have to
be done FAR in advance and with ample community input, just like we
are doing for the South America survey.
(Recall some recent discussion about moving a meeting to avoid some
holiday [Easter as I recall].)
But you are generally right: our dates are fixed for mostly all good
reasons, it's just that sometimes we find that this can also be to
our detriment. If we are looking ahead several years, I can well
imagine some negotiation, say with an RIR meeting, etc, etc.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo
On Fri, 24 May 2013, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 5/24/13 11:37 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 05/24/2013 11:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
probably because I've been involved in the planning loop since 44.
... and you're also involved in planning for LACNIC, LACTLD, LACNOG, and
every other regional organization in Latin America that might be interested
in running their meeting before or after ours?
The question was whether the IETF dates are fungible. They aren't. I would
like them to be rather more fungible and I'm apparently in the minority. There
is a reason why the colocated ieee meeting with the IETF occured something
like 6 years after it was proposed.