On the topic of 1-1-1... I don't see evidence sufficient to warrant a change to something else right now. In saying that I regard the 1-1-1 scheme as being somewhat aspirational in practice, and that's ok. I also don't know that we'd be wise to base any changes on purely historical data. I think there's a significant probability that even currently very regular attendees may individually move towards a 1-0-1 or similar pattern where they skip f2f meetings that aren't that convenient for them, on the basis that once one knows a bunch of IETFers, being remote for 1 out of 3 meetings (or similar) is not that bad an experience these days. I think that'd be a perfectly reasonable approach to meetings and would be one that ought change our calculations, should it start to become common. I'm not sure what changes to meeting frequency or locales such developments would imply, but I doubt it'd be as easy as 1-1-1->2-1-1 or anything like that. S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
