Re: IETF MAILING: REGISTERED ATTENDEES: December 9-13, 1996

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sun, 08 December 1996 05:08 UTC

Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa27359; 8 Dec 96 0:08 EST
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp by ietf.org id aa27129; 8 Dec 96 0:06 EST
Sender: ietf-request@ietf.org
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-Id: <199612080042.JAA04006@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Received: by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (8.6.11/TM2.1) id JAA04006; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:41:55 +0859
Subject: Re: IETF MAILING: REGISTERED ATTENDEES: December 9-13, 1996
To: Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 09:41:54 -0000
Cc: mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp, ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <no.id>; from "Matt Crawford" at Dec 7, 96 6:45 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.

> > > > > I suggest that the number of meetings in each region might best be
> > > > > proportional to the number of authors of i-d's or RFC's from each
> > > > > region.
> > > > It's a good way to make the unbalanced proportion fixed forever.
> > > If your logic were correct, we would never have had non-US
> > > participation in the IETF before the first non-US meeting.
> > Quantum Mechanics assures that there always some exceptional leak.
> 
> We know a thing or two about QM at Fermilab and I assure you that
> it is not relevant.  You claimed "fixed forever," now you say it
> would not be fixed even from one meeting to the next.

Yes.

For further precision, feel free to use relativistic theory.

> > > The purpose of the above suggestion is to
> > > put the meetings where they are convenient to those who do the work.
> > The purpose is to put the meetings where they are convenient to
> > those who should do the work.
> 
> I am not qualified to judge who "should" do the work.

All the people in the world, of course. Why do you think any judgement
necessary?

They definitely should not consists of 24/25 of NA people.

							Masataka Ohta