The question should be asked if participation would pick up if we went to latin america. Also given the political situation a trip to Brazil might pre-empt some issues. If the timing of the approch was right (ie when the olympic bidding round is at its peak if Rio rebids) the authorities could be very obliging. > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:04 AM > To: Scott W Brim > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; dassa@xxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions > > The IETF should indeed meet where our participants come from. > That was my initial comment (from the mike) on "are we from > Latin America, Africa, or Antarctica?" I think that remains > to be shown. > > 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. What Brian then has to ask is "what are the trend > lines". My understanding from his behavior (we haven't > actually had this > conversation) is that he thinks we are trending towards being > roughly equally from those regions, and therefore is trying > to distribute meetings roughly evenly among them. > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf