Joel, This isn't 100% true. While our dates are not "fungible," we could *consider* a date move, say +/- a week *if* this would give us availability in a certain location. This would of course be the *exception* and not the rule (which you have correct), but *if* we found that, say, moving IETF 127 one week would make everything work perfectly, then, yes, we *could* do it. Of course, this would have to be done FAR in advance and with ample community input, just like we are doing for the South America survey.
(Recall some recent discussion about moving a meeting to avoid some holiday [Easter as I recall].) But you are generally right: our dates are fixed for mostly all good reasons, it's just that sometimes we find that this can also be to our detriment. If we are looking ahead several years, I can well imagine some negotiation, say with an RIR meeting, etc, etc. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj Skype: organdemo On Fri, 24 May 2013, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 5/24/13 11:37 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 05/24/2013 11:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > > > probably because I've been involved in the planning loop since 44. > > > > ... and you're also involved in planning for LACNIC, LACTLD, LACNOG, and > > every other regional organization in Latin America that might be interested > > in running their meeting before or after ours? > > > The question was whether the IETF dates are fungible. They aren't. I would > like them to be rather more fungible and I'm apparently in the minority. There > is a reason why the colocated ieee meeting with the IETF occured something > like 6 years after it was proposed. > >
