I am not looking forward to the time zone for the upcoming Bangkok
meeting. But I agree that rotating the time zone is the right thing to
do, and I deal with the meetings being when they have been announced. I
would expect us to continue rotating the time zones this way as long as
we have virtual IETF meetings.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/22/2020 12:15 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Sep 22, 2020, at 8:38 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 22 Sep 2020, at 8:17, Livingood, Jason wrote:
Maybe for WG sessions we should just let the WG chairs determine the timeframe that works best for the participants rather than imposing a time zone on a top-down basis? To use an extreme example, if all the participants are in UTC then why force them all to meet in UTC+10 for their session? Letting each WH choose their meeting times seems a potentially better way to go, though common sessions like the plenary could adhere to a common time zone. I'm sure conflict avoidance may be an issue but I'm sure this could be sorted during the draft schedule stage.
Asking the WG chairs to decide which WG members might be the most important is not a good way for the IETF to go. The fact that many of the authors and regular list contributors for the WG are in one region is irrelevant to the value of a meeting.
I agree.
I think the best way to do this is to share the pain. That is, like the face-to-face meetings, we should cycle through different time zones regions for each virtual meeting. That way, everyone suffers equally. Approximately, one meeting near your local time zone, one early or late, and one in the middle of the night.
Bob
We should be optimizing for valuable mic-line-equivalent participation, not for non-sleepy presenters and non-sleepy mic line regulars. WG chairs are often surprised by who was valuable at the mic lines during a meeting. Asking them to try to predict that will likely lead to anti-optimization. Random inconvenient time zones still seems best.
--Paul Hoffman
