On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 12:13:13PM +0800, Loa Andersson wrote: > Folks, > > On 27/12/2020 12:37, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 06:49:26PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> > >> >> As previously announced, IETF 110 will be an online meeting [1]. IETF > >> >> 110 working sessions will take place 8-12 March, from 12:00 to 18:00 UTC > >> >> each day. This time block was chosen to schedule the meeting during the > >> >> normal meeting hours in Prague, the original meeting location, and to be > >> >> consistent with the intent of guidance in Section 2 of RFC 8719 related > >> >> to meeting rotation. IETF 107, 108, and 109 similarly started in the > >> >> early afternoon local time in the original meeting locations. > >> > >> Okay, each time we complain that starting time *ISN'T* the time that we would > >> have started if we were local, I'm told that it is consistent with the > >> previous decision. > >> > >> It is then noted that IETF107 was scheduled without a lot of thought. > >> So we are being consistent with a random decision in my opinion. > > > > In some sense, yes ... but given that in person we can meet for 9+ hours, > > and online we're lucky to be productive for 6 straight, it also seems > > fairly arbitrary whether we start at the same time, or end at the same > > time (or somewhere in between) that we would if meeting in person. > > > > Kind of agree, but really why do we need to consider the local time, at > least for some of the cities we are (virtually) going to have very few > local participants. I don't have the answer for you. My understanding is that SHMOO is chartered to consider topics such as this, but regrettably I personally don't have time to spend thinking about it, given my other commitments. > I will not do any meetings that is before 6am or after midnight. I think > it would be better to try the 6 hours that is reasonably hard for the > participants that get the hardest deal, maybe even find two alternate 6 > hour slots. But they need not have anything to do with the "local time". It's your prerogative to place those hard limits, sure. (109 was 9pm-3am for me and I managed, but I am very fortunate in my home environment.) But my understanding is that for any 6-hour block you pick, "the participants that get the hardest slot" will have that slow overlap with their midnight-6am window, and it's far from obvious that we want to always give the hardest slot to the same limited set of people. Hence, having a WG to consider it... -Ben
