US by itself was about half, and Canada was about another 10%. The current split of 2/3 in North America and alternating Europe and Asia once a year still seems to make sense from the stats. Tony Hansen Fred Baker wrote: > That said, I'll remind you of the demographics of this particular > meeting, working from memory from the slide Brian showed Wednesday > evening. It looked to me like this meeting was a tad less than half from > North America, perhaps 20% from Japan and China, and most of the rest > from Europe. That argues for roughly half of our meetings being in North > America, a meeting every other year in Asia, and the rest in Europe. > > On Jul 14, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Scott W Brim wrote: > >> On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: >>> Once upon a time, the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of >>> the IETF was from Europe, a smattering was from elsewhere, and >>> the lion's share was from the US, so I scheduled a meeting every >>> other year in Europe, the odd one in random places, and the >>> lion's share in the US. Those statistics are essentially >>> meaningless now. >> >> Why are they meaningless? The IETF should overwhelmingly meet where >> the participants are, wherever that might be. I still like your >> algorithm. http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/plenaryw-0.pdf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf