What we did for the IAB meetings was compute the minimax, i.e. the time that minimized the pain for the worst hit attendee. In fact pick two such times, one for winter and one for summer, to spread the pain.
-- Christian Huitema On Mar 2, 2020, at 7:39 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@xxxxxx> wrote:
the WG chairs choose, for each WG, what time out of the 24-hour clock works for the majority of their active participants
I just want to point out one other issue in with this type of algorithm. When you do this for a given WG, you often get a time that is after 8 am pacific time and before early evening in Europe as that is simply the distribution of participants in many WGs. If, for every meeting, you always use this algorithm, you always get a time that is really bad for Asia. That does not seem fair and even if you don’t care about fair, it does not seem like an optimal outcome for the internet. I don’t think that anyone wants an algorithm that selects meetings that are always convenient for silicon valley at the cost of never being convenient for Asia.
It’s really hard to decide what is it we are trying to optimize when choosing meetings. For a bunch of the WebRTC meeting we tried to place them in the location or times where the frequency of how often the meeting was convenient for users in region X was roughly proportional to the number of participants from region X.
|
