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@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:56 AM > To: Scott Brim > Cc: Adrian Farrel; ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf