ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
On 9/7/2010 5:41 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do work in the IETF
without being physically present at meetings, as well...
A significant amount of IETF meeting participants that have their
expenses sponsored
On 9/7/2010 5:41 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do work in the IETF
without being physically present at meetings, as well...
I think that this has been true since the first IETF (at least if you
replace the word increasingly with the word very).
On 9/7/2010 2:50 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Dave and I don't always agree :-)
I don't think we've got either the database of people not attending because
of costs nor a good model for factoring them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's
Well, we agree on this. But I class this as a failure or at
On 9/7/10 6:13 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Michael == Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net writes:
Michael I don't think we've got either the database of people not
Michael attending because of costs nor a good model for
On 8 sep 2010, at 3:13, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
or people who only attend meetings in their home region,
Am I imagining things or are more and more American attendees foregoing
meetings outside North America?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Joel == Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com writes:
Michael I don't think we've got either the database of people not
Michael attending because of costs nor a good model for factoring
Michael them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times some percentage who
Do we at least have a list of
On 9/7/10 1:55 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Sep 7, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 9/3/10 3:45 PM, Hascall Sharp wrote:
Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is
required in order to participate effectively in the work.
We have the same number as when I
On 9/8/10 9:48 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Joel == Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com writes:
Michael I don't think we've got either the database of people not
Michael attending because of costs nor a good model for factoring
Michael them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/06/2010 09:06 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
People from Europe, Japan, Australia, and some other countries don't need a
visa at all to go to an IETF meeting in the US. People from China, India and
the other countries are generally backed by
On 8/30/10 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
...snip...
Am I missing something?
...snip...
Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is
required in order to participate effectively in the work.
It seems to me that IETF is going in the wrong direction in terms of
On 8/30/2010 1:05 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Also big corporations do have limited budget for IETF participation,
For most self-funded participants, the difference between their budget for
travel and the budget a corporation provides is massive. For example, the IETF
main conference
On 9/3/10 3:45 PM, Hascall Sharp wrote:
On 8/30/10 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
...snip...
Am I missing something?
...snip...
Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is
required in order to participate effectively in the work.
We have the same number as
At 05:45 PM 9/3/2010, Hascall Sharp wrote:
On 8/30/10 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
...snip...
Am I missing something?
...snip...
Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence
is required in order to participate effectively in the work.
Creating the ability to mimic
: IETF Attendance by continent
At 05:45 PM 9/3/2010, Hascall Sharp wrote:
On 8/30/10 3:57 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
...snip...
Am I missing something?
...snip...
Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence
is required in order to participate effectively in the work
absolutely no hats
On Sep 7, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Sep 7, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 9/3/10 3:45 PM, Hascall Sharp wrote:
Yes. The IETF is having too many meetings where physical presence is
required in order to participate effectively in the work.
We
Dave and I don't always agree :-)
I don't think we've got either the database of people not attending because of
costs nor a good model for factoring them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times
some percentage who would still not attend because of other issues times some
percentage where the
It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do
work in the IETF without being physically present at
meetings, as well...
I think that this has been true since the first IETF (at least if you replace
the word increasingly with the word very). I also think that this is true
of other
Michael == Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net writes:
Michael I don't think we've got either the database of people not
Michael attending because of costs nor a good model for factoring
Michael them in if we did (e.g. N pnac's times some percentage who
Do we at least have a list
On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:00 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Michael == Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net writes:
Michael I don't think we've got either the database of people not
Michael attending because of costs nor a good model for factoring
Michael them in if we did (e.g. N
On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:41 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
It's my sense that it's increasingly difficult to do
work in the IETF without being physically present at
meetings, as well...
I think that this has been true since the first IETF (at least if you replace
the word increasingly with the
: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Christer Holmberg
Sent: 06 September 2010 08:17
To: Andrew G. Malis; Glen Zorn
Cc: Randall Gellens; IETF-Discussion list; Hadriel Kaplan
Subject: RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Hi,
I assume Hawaii has
Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] writes:
Hi,
I assume Hawaii has the same visa issues as the rest of US...
Of course, and the same heavily armed ICE agents. As an aside, the only
other place I've ever encountered armed border guards was at the
Austrian/Slovakian
-Discussion list'; 'Hadriel Kaplan'
Subject: RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] writes:
Hi,
I assume Hawaii has the same visa issues as the rest of US...
Of course, and the same heavily armed ICE agents
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Yoav Nir
Sent: 6. syyskuuta 2010 10:06
To: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
True.
But the visa issues seem to be the worst part
Yoav Nit [mailto://y...@checkpoint.com] writes:
...
I would go so far as to say that getting a US visa seems easier than
getting one to China. Who are the people for whom it's easier to visit a
European country than it is to visit the US?
Umm, Americans? I have lived outside the US for
Christer Holmberg [mailto://christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] writes:
I guess the chinese (and other affected nationalities) can speak for
themselves, but as far as I know it is not that easy to get a US visa -
even with company backup etc. I have never heard about people having
problems
Personally I don't care that much where the meetings take place - I am
more interested WHEN they take place. For me it is the PEOPLE that
make a meeting good or bad - not the location. There are people
working in much worse conditions than we are, and still
they manage to
do a great job.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Christer Holmberg
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 3:52 PM
To: Yoav Nir; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: RE: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I guess the chinese
I should point out that Canada has most of the logistical advantages the usa
enjoys, while imposing quite a bit less visa pain.
- Tim
On Sep 5, 2010 3:39 PM, Andrew G. Malis agma...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been to several conferences at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in
Waikiki. Both the hotel and
Tim Bray [mailto:tb...@textuality.com] writes:
I should point out that Canada has most of the logistical advantages the usa
enjoys, while imposing quite a bit less visa pain.
Well, yes, except that in my experience direct international flight to
Canada are a lot more expensive than international
Tim Bray wrote:
I should point out that Canada has most of the logistical advantages the
usa enjoys, while imposing quite a bit less visa pain.
Actually, based on my own experience, getting a Canadian visa is usually
*faster* than getting a US visa, but probably much more *painful*.
That's my
I've been to several conferences at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in
Waikiki. Both the hotel and the attached convention center are large
enough to host several IETFs simultaneously.
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Glen Zorn g...@net-zen.net wrote:
Hadriel Kaplan
; Hadriel Kaplan
Subject: Re: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I've been to several conferences at the Hilton Hawaiian
Village in Waikiki. Both the hotel and the attached
convention center are large enough to host several IETFs
simultaneously.
Cheers,
Andy
On 2 sep 2010, at 7:40, Christer Holmberg wrote:
In my opinion, the discussion whether we should change the meeting calendar
(not having meetings during summer vacation months etc) was much more
interesting and useful.
To revisit that: if we move up all the meetings by one month, we gain a
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
A february meeting would be in the coldest part of winter, so that
meeting would have to be in a place where winters aren't too harsh.
But then, march in Minneapolis is no picnic either.
Even better: In the southern hemisphere, February and March is Summer
time.
On 9/1/2010 2:07 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I think it is more important to think about where the IETF is headed and where
Internet and networking work seems to be happening in the world. From that
perspective I would personally prefer to see 1:1:1
+1
And I think the statistics do show that
On Aug 31, 2010, at 4:56 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Consider that contributors
usually start as newcomers, attend several meetings, then write a draft,
I don't know about you, but I wrote drafts before my first meeting.
Me too. I actually had an RFC published two months before
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Randall Gellens rg+i...@qualcomm.com wrote:
At 10:08 AM +0700 9/1/10, Glen Zorn wrote:
Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and
solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island.
Because it's the nicest,
Clint Chaplin [mailto:clint.chap...@gmail.com] writes:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Randall Gellens rg+i...@qualcomm.com
wrote:
At 10:08 AM +0700 9/1/10, Glen Zorn wrote:
Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and
solves for many of the problems, but you
On 09/01/2010 07:35 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Aug 31, 2010, at 4:56 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Consider that contributors
usually start as newcomers, attend several meetings, then write a draft,
I don't know about you, but I wrote drafts before my first meeting.
Me too. I actually had an
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
: 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
Marshall
Ross
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Marshall Eubanks
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:56 AM
To: Scott Brim
Cc: Adrian Farrel; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On Aug 28, 2010, at 1:25
[mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Marshall Eubanks
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:56 AM
To: Scott Brim
Cc: Adrian Farrel; ietf@ietf.org
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
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Marshall Eubanks
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:56 AM
To: Scott Brim
Cc: Adrian Farrel; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
On Aug 28, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Scott Brim
Marshall,
While I admire your math skills I think you're making this way more
complicated than it needs to be. (In the IETF? Perish the thought!)
1. Figure out what the desired ratio is
2. Add up the total number of meetings represented by the ratio
3. Multiply by 2 to arrive at number N
4.
I think we are over-analyzing this. Do not be too focused on the
numbers, or whether current pick your metric points to 1, 1.7, or 2. I
think it is more important to think about where the IETF is headed and
where Internet and networking work seems to be happening in the world.
From that
, September 01, 2010 10:56 AM
To: Scott Brim
Cc: Adrian Farrel; ietf@ietf.org
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
...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: 2. syyskuuta 2010 0:07
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
I think we are over-analyzing this. Do not be too focused on
the numbers, or whether current pick your metric points to
1, 1.7, or 2. I think it is more important
- Original Message -
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com
To: Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl
Cc: IETF-Discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 10:33 PM
On 30 aug 2010, at 21:57, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
If you want to be fair to the individual participants you
On Aug 31, 2010, at 10:43 AM, t.petch wrote:
If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize
in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual
that
regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by putting
fairly
On 31 aug 2010, at 1:13, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
My vote is strongly in favor of 1:1:1.
1. First, the location _is_ a significant barrier to entry for newcomers
and other contributors. Optimizing only for the current status quo does
create a strong perpetual cycle of self reinforcing structure
On 8/30/2010 12:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 8/30/10 1:53 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
I was expecting something like:
pi:e:sqrt(-1)
Given the irrationality this topic evokes, that seems about right. ;-)
could lead to a new branch of the field: affective computing.
or at least an
On Aug 30, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and
solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island.
Because it's the nicest, obviously. :)
We can even rotate islands if people get bored.
Well,
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Hadriel Kaplan hkap...@acmepacket.com wrote:
On Aug 30, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and
solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island.
Because it's the nicest,
--On Monday, August 30, 2010 21:57 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
The recent remark on bias against individuals[*] made me think
about weighing the location preference by number of
participants from certain regions.
Suppose an individual from Asia attends all IETFs then her
Hadriel Kaplan [mailto://hkap...@acmepacket.com] writes:
...
Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and
solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island.
Because it's the nicest, obviously. :)
I strongly disagree: the leeward coast of Maui (in
At 10:08 AM +0700 9/1/10, Glen Zorn wrote:
Why Kauai? You list detailed reasons why Hawaii is logical and
solves for many of the problems, but you don't say why this island.
Because it's the nicest, obviously. :)
I strongly disagree: the leeward coast of Maui (in particular, Kihei
I also certainly didn't see consensus for 1 1 1. I got the sense there was a
good bit of support for 2 1 1 and some for 3 2 1.
BTW, the survey that just went out lacks 2 1 1 as choice, a seemingly
glaring error given that many on this thread seemed to support it and it
most closely matched the
On 8/27/2010 2:19 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
However, I also believe that the outreach component is an important one to
the viability/goodwill of/towards the organization.
Olaf,
I don't understand this assertion. It's the sort of statement that is easy to
make and sounds good, but it's
At 3:35 PM -0700 8/28/10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/27/2010 2:19 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
However, I also believe that the outreach component is an important one to
the viability/goodwill of/towards the organization.
Olaf,
I don't understand this assertion. It's the sort of statement
I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian
Farrel
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:28 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
And even closer to 3:2:2
I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio.
Actually, the correct ratio is pi:e:sqrt(2). Furthermore, one can prove
that, given enough IETFs, we can converge to this close enough that we'll be
within _everyone's_ error margin!
Robert
___
Ietf
On 30 aug 2010, at 21.46, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio.
Actually, the correct ratio is pi:e:sqrt(2). Furthermore, one can prove that,
given enough IETFs, we can converge to this close enough that we'll be within
_everyone's_ error margin!
I was
On 8/30/10 1:53 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 30 aug 2010, at 21.46, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio.
Actually, the correct ratio is pi:e:sqrt(2). Furthermore, one can
prove that, given enough IETFs, we can converge to this close
enough that
The recent remark on bias against individuals[*] made me think about weighing
the location preference by number of participants from certain regions.
Suppose an individual from Asia attends all IETFs then her costs are that for
attending 6 IETFs she gets to travel 1x regional and 5x
On 30 aug 2010, at 21.57, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in
such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that
regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by
putting fairly
On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 30 aug 2010, at 21.57, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize
in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual
that regularly attends the IETF.
On 30 aug 2010, at 22.10, Melinda Shore wrote:
On Aug 30, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 30 aug 2010, at 21.57, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize
in such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every
-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Olaf
Kolkman
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 3:58 PM
To: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Optimizing for what? Was Re: IETF Attendance by continent
The recent remark on bias against individuals[*] made me think about weighing
That is a well defined target metric.
It is defensible.
It is not the one the community has used up till now.
One could also aim to minimize total cost (or total pain).
Arguably, that would place all the meetings in california.
Up to till now, we have worked on a balance between those two
On 30 aug 2010, at 21:57, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
If you want to be fair to the individual participants you have to optimize in
such a way that attending 6 meetings costs the same for every individual that
regularly attends the IETF. Obviously one can only approximate that by
putting fairly
The obvious answer is to pick a location that is equi-distant or equally
expensive for most people, and does not meet too often in one contintent.
There is such a place: Hawaii. It is fairly mid-point between APAC and the
Americas, and just slightly farther from Europe (well, a lot farther
On 30 aug 2010, at 23:47, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular) from now on.
We can even rotate islands if people get bored.
No, we'd still have to rotate oceans. Iceland is nice and close to both NA and
EU (farther north generally helps),
I vote for Mauritius. I'm sure AfriNIC would be glad to host.
--Richard
On Aug 30, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 30 aug 2010, at 23:47, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Therefore, I propose we meet in Hawaii (and Kauai in particular)
from now on. We can even rotate islands if
At 5:47 PM -0400 8/30/10, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
The obvious answer is to pick a location that is equi-distant or
equally expensive for most people, and does not meet too often in
one contintent. There is such a place: Hawaii. It is fairly
mid-point between APAC and the Americas, and just
From: Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.net
And even closer to 3:2:2 ?
I also feel that 3:2:2 is about the right ratio.
Well, 5:3:3 (a ratio of .833, NA/others) is even closer to the 1.7:1:1 (.850)
of the data than 3:2:2 (.750, off by .100). (2:1:1 of course gives 1.0, a
variance of
ratio.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Adrian Farrel
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:28 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
And even closer to 3:2:2 ?
- Original Message
: IETF Attendance by continent
At 5:47 PM -0400 8/30/10, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
The obvious answer is to pick a location that is equi-distant or
equally expensive for most people, and does not meet too often in
one contintent. There is such a place: Hawaii. It is fairly
mid-point between APAC
First I like the idea of Hawaii because flights and hotels can be
inexpensive even from Europe (although Hilo might be cheaper and just as
easy to get to as Honolulu). However I still think we need to account for
actual participation in the equation to decide which places to hold
meetings.
From: Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net
On 8/26/2010 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Thank you for providing this but this data seems to support something
closer to 2-1-1 than 1-1-1
I took there to be a reasonable consensus from that that 1-1-1 made the
most sense.
I
Noel == Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu writes:
I suspect that a more nuanced analysis would have this as 1.7 and
shrinking : 1 and stable : 1 and stable.
Noel and his conclusion:
I would support 2:1:1 for the present, with an intention to review that
in 2-3
And even closer to 3:2:2 ?
- Original Message -
From: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu
To: Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Noel == Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu writes
wrote:
And even closer to 3:2:2 ?
- Original Message - From: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu
To: Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Noel == Noel Chiappa j
On 08/28/2010 12:28 EDT, Adrian Farrel wrote:
And even closer to 3:2:2 ?
+0.2
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:44 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
During my IAOC chair plenary talk at IETF78 (slides are in the proceedings) I
asked a question about continuing the current meeting policy (3 in North
America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Asia in two year period (3-2-1) ) or changing to a
1-1-1 policy
On 8/26/2010 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Thank you for providing this but this data seems to support something closer
to 2-1-1 than 1-1-1
...
(and sorry I just joined the thread now - been on vacation )
Cullen,
The rest of the thread explored this issue by a number of us, looking at
On 8/26/2010 2:44 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
but I still don't see how people come to 1-1-1, could you enlighten me.
I offered my own comments in the thread, including my version of wandering
around the data. I even commented that 2-1-1 had some justification but that
1-1-1 appears to
On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:18 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/26/2010 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Thank you for providing this but this data seems to support something closer
to 2-1-1 than 1-1-1
...
(and sorry I just joined the thread now - been on vacation )
Cullen,
The rest of the
Bob,
Thank you for providing this but this data seems to support something closer to
2-1-1 than 1-1-1. How do you get to the 1-1-1 conclusion because I can't figure
out how to get there with this data. It seems tome the ratio of NA To Asia is
closer to 2 than 1 any way you slice it.
Cullen
I read the thread, but I still don't see how people come to 1-1-1, could you
enlighten me. Seriously, I know this sounds facetiously but in the case, I
really am trying to understand how you come to that conclusion out of this
data.
On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:18 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On
On Aug 26, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Thank you for providing this but this data seems to support something closer
to 2-1-1 than 1-1-1. How do you get to the 1-1-1 conclusion because I can't
figure out how to get there with this data. It seems tome the ratio of NA To
Asia is
Bob == Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com writes:
Bob A question for you. Should we select meeting venues to
Bob minimize the cost/time/etc. of all attendees or just, for
Bob example, w.g. chairs? Many people have suggested that the IAOC
Bob should be looking at overall attendee
...@comcast.net
Cc: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com; IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Fri Aug 06 18:37:15 2010
Subject: Re: IETF Attendance by continent
Mike,
On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Bob -
Would it be possible to get two additional version of this chart?
1
On 8/6/2010 1:44 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
During my IAOC chair plenary talk at IETF78 (slides are in the proceedings) I
asked a question about continuing the current meeting policy (3 in North
...
Bob,
These numbers probably need to be correlated with the venue of each meeting.
One would
On 8/6/2010 5:37 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
A question for you. Should we select meeting venues to minimize the
cost/time/etc. of all attendees or just, for example, w.g. chairs? Many
people have suggested that the IAOC should be looking at overall attendee
costs, but there might be a difference
On 8/7/2010 6:03 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 7, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
I'd really rather the IETF go places where the ability to get work done
is the primary consideration.
To me, that's the only consideration apart from being open and spreading the
travel pain among our
On 8/9/2010 12:00 PM, David Kessens wrote:
I think all these models that are based on where we are from are really
beside the point as where we are from really doesn't necessarily have any
connection with where we like to go.
David,
Sometimes, someone posts a comment that highlights a key
On 8/9/2010 11:19 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
daycare shutdown periods, and the like. It would probably make it possible for
more people to join the meeting.
The current template is:
March, July, November.
September tends to be a messy month, IMO, so I'd suggest against it, preferring
On 8/11/2010 12:05 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
So, if we want to go to a January / May / September cycle starting in 2014, I
think we need to put
January and September strike as being especially challenging months.
February and October seem to be much less so.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
