Re: [rtcweb] Update of future interim meeting locations

1) I'd like to let the chairs have some flexibility
2) It's important when we start counting, too

So far, my current list of meetings for this WG starts off with the 
October 2010 unofficial get-together, and has 1 interim meeting on it: 
Jan/Feb 2012, in Mountain View.

Inbetween are 5 meetings at IETFs including the BOF.

That makes my count:

NA-West: 2 (both interims)
NA-East: 1
Europe: 2
Asia: 2

The next 3 IETF meetings are 1 NA-West and 2 NA-East, so after that set 
plus the upcoming Europe interim, we'll have:

NA-West: 3
NA-East: 3
Europe: 3
Asia: 2

Not too uneven. But just after the upcoming interim, it will seem like 
the maths of the situation should definitely force the chairs to 
schedule an NA-East interim; I'd like the chairs to have leeway about that.

On 04/17/2012 10:57 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Cullen Jennings<fluffy@cisco.com>  wrote:
>> First of all, the chairs would are going to declare that there is WG
>> consensus for a 1:1:1 meeting rotation between west coast of north
>> america, europe, and east coast of north america and plan to run
>> approximately equal number of meetings in these locations.  In
>> counting the number of past meetings in a given region, we will
>> include all the face to face RTCWeb and WebRTC meetings as this work
>> is closely joined and a large number of the participants travel to
>> both sets of meetings. The face to face meetings that happen at the
>> main IETF or W3C meetings are included in this count. Collocated
>> meetings will be counted just once as they only require one set of
>> travel to that location.
> Cullen,
>
> Thanks for this clarification. Just to be totally sure I understand,
> do you mean the following algorithm?
>
>     For an interim meeting at time X, sum up all the prior meetings
>     for each of the regions. The region with the fewest prior
>     meetings is then selected for the next interim. [0]
>
> Is this what you guys have in mind?
>
> -Ekr
>
> [0] For extra credit, ties need to be resolved somehow. I can
> suggest a mechanism if you need one :)
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>