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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf