Should NAACL and ICML co-locate?

It's been a while since we've had a survey, so here's a new one. The question is: should NAACL and ICML attempt to co-locate in the near future (probably no sooner than 2010, since planning for 2009 is already fairly well established). The reason the question is NAACL-specific and not, eg., ACL or EMNLP, is because I don't have any control over what ACL or EMNLP does. (For that matter, I don't have any control over what ICML does either.)

Should NLPers and MLers co-locate?
	I attend both and would like a co-location
	I attend both and would not like a co-location
	I usually only attend (NA)ACL, but would like a co-location
	I usually only attend (NA)ACL, and would not like a co-location
	I usually only attend ICML, but would like a co-location
	I usually only attend ICML, and would not like a co-location
	I attend neither and so my vote doesn't count

The obvious question is: why should this happen? Well, for one, it will save me travel time and money! What more convincing do you want?

More seriously, I think that the NLP community and the ML community have been bumping up against each other for a while now. More importantly, the model is no longer: NLP world supplies data to ML world supplies algorithm to NLP world. Our problems are often different from those that are commonly studied in ML, or have different prior biases (not necessarily in the Bayesian sense). But not only do we have interesting problems, I think we also have a different way of viewing the world (though not so different as to make communication impossible). I think the goal of such an endeavor would be marked most by having shared tutorials (one side can see what the other does) and shared workshops.