-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Another point to consider is reachability. While some folks don't mind
flying two days in each direction to get to some location or another, I
generally consider a good balance between time and cost to be more
important than pure monetary
On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Darryl ((Dassa)) Lynch wrote:
The closer the events are to my location, the more likely it
is I may make it.
To be honest, for those of us that don't have a business reason to
ignore distance as an issue (and companies will tend to trade off
number of
On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
Once upon a time,
the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe,
a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US,
so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd one in
random
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Eric Rosen wrote:
The focus on document relationships rather than on simplifying
the standards track is what (well, is one of the things) that
sent newtrk off into the weeds.
I completely agree.
Frankly, I don't care if someone on a desert island cannot
figure out from
Scott W Brim wrote:
On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
Once upon a time,
the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe,
a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US,
so I scheduled a meeting every other year in Europe, the odd
On 14-jul-2006, at 11:04, Fred Baker wrote:
It looked to me like this meeting was a tad less than half from
North America, perhaps 20% from Japan and China, and most of the
rest from Europe. That argues for roughly half of our meetings
being in North America, a meeting every other year in
Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to be sure what those
statistics referred to.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
US by itself was about half, and Canada was about another 10%. The
current split of 2/3 in North America and alternating Europe and Asia
once a year still seems to make sense from the stats.
Tony Hansen
Fred Baker wrote:
That said, I'll remind you of the demographics of this particular
from the norht american stats. I would encourage you to compare the
european and asiapac meetings, from the proceedings. My observation
is that the region/country the meeting happens in tends to be
exaggerated. Yokohama, for example, was 1977 folks, of which 1/4 were
US and perhaps 40%
There are two issues:
1) Cost. IETF has limited resources, so unless each of us want to pay more
and more for the registration fees or we are able to compensate the cost
with more sponsors (which is every day more difficult), we need to look for
cheaper locations.
2) Is un fair that the main
good point
Fred Baker wrote:
from the norht american stats. I would encourage you to compare the
european and asiapac meetings, from the proceedings. My observation is
that the region/country the meeting happens in tends to be exaggerated.
Yokohama, for example, was 1977 folks, of which 1/4
If the IETF is trying to promote the Internet (as ICANN does), then
holding meetings where participants aren't generally from is a step
in spreading the Internet.
If the IETF is meant to be a bare-bones, get engineering work done,
it ought to be in the most cost effective location. For what
For your information:
On 20 July 2006, ITU-T will celebrate 50 years of making the
standards that have played a massive part in shaping the information and
communications technologies (ICT) and services of today, see
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/50/;
jfc
Hi,
I think I am somewhat confused by this discussion.
In one place you say:
On 14 jul 2006, at 11.04, Fred Baker wrote:
The IETF should indeed meet where our participants come from. That
was my initial comment (from the mike) on are we from Latin
America, Africa, or Antarctica? I think
I definitively support the view that IETF should reach larger audiences of
participants and therefore target regions in a balanced manner not based on the
% of participants. Many do not participate because their travel challenges are
almost never addressed by IETF. These statistics are skewed
From: Avri Doria [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the european and asiapac meetings, from the proceedings.
...
Yokohama, for example, was 1977 folks, of which 1/4 were US and
perhaps 40% were Japanese. Seoul was similar.
a large number of participants will come from whatever
At 16:14 14/07/2006, Scott W Brim wrote:
On 07/14/2006 10:01 AM, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
Once upon a time,
the guideline I followed was that about 1/6 of the IETF was from Europe,
a smattering was from elsewhere, and the lion's share was from the US,
so I scheduled a meeting every other
| -Original Message-
| From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:05 AM
| To: ietf@ietf.org
| Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions
|
| There are two issues:
I believe there are far more issues which makes the whole thing much more
complex
On Jul 14, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Try taking the overall NA data, and removing the NA people; the
remaining data should be relatively unbiased (e.g. the Asia/Europe
ratio should be fairly close to the actual value). Do the same
for the European and Asian meetings, only there
Hi Fred,
on 2006-07-14 22:45 Fred Baker said the following:
...
Assumption: the we in question is folks who post internet drafts.
Attendance at an IETF meeting or being on the mailing list doesn't
qualify for consideration here.
Criticism: there are SO many ways to approach that one.
From: Henrik Levkowetz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Note that since drafts can have multiple authors, the sum of the
following percentages are more than 100%),
# 1523 drafts (73.08%) have authors from North America.
# 1116 drafts (53.55%) have authors from Europe.
# 417
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4564
Title: Objectives for Control and Provisioning
of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)
Author: S. Govindan, Ed.,
H. Cheng, ZH. Yao,
22 matches
Mail list logo
