RE: IETF 110 schedule update

[Larry Masinter <LMM@xxxxxxx>]

Consider other possibilities as experiments: a shorter daily window stretched out over more days (.e.g. half as much daily sessions but over a two-week period) with some accommodations for people who can’t make the sessions week 1 (by shifting week 2 hours plus or minus 8 hours); every area could have  Q&A sessions in the “other” week for groups that only meet once. (or for groups that don’t meet at all, for that matter).

 

--

https://LarryMasinter.net https://interlisp.org

 

From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Christian Huitema
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2020 11:58 AM
To: Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx>; Lixia Zhang <lixia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: IETF 110 schedule update

 

On 12/30/2020 9:43 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:

Lixia,

This is on top of the issues people have mentioned: your surroundings and surrounding people go by local time, making sleep hour adjustment (to remote meeting time) difficult, a big factor on its own.
(about a consistent message about 109 schedule from US participants: my guess is that 109's 9pm-3am pacific schedule affected US, especially pacific people most? I recall 108 was 4-9AM pacific, which was manageable)

 

For those of us on the US east coast, it was midnight-6AM.

 

There are plenty of professions in which people have to work the night shift. They encounter exactly all the problems that we see described here, having to sleep during the day time, eating at odd hours, not socializing with their family, etc. It is hard, but the people doing that manage, including those who have my age. I suppose it is a matter of setting expectations with your family and your job.

-- Christian Huitema