It can, of course. Use D'Hondt or something to pick the next meeting venue. Stephan On 9.1.2010 08:24 , "Ross Callon" <rcallon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Why does this have to be precisely on an integer-number year boundary? > > 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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf