Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> But, I agree that making IETF108 virtual is probably best.
>>>
>>> What I'd like to see is that we agree
>>> 1) that the Madrid Time Zone will be used for all plenary stuff
>>
>> Why? If IETF 108 becomes virtual, then there’ll be no relationship with
>> Madrid at all.
>>
>> As with the current, ongoing virtual IETF 107 (which has no relationship
>> with Vancouver), just choose a time zone that (tries to) work best for the
>> worldwide IETF community.
> The schedule for 107 maps pretty well to the Vancouver time zone. I think a
> reason one might choose Madrid as the time zone for 108 if we have to go
> virtual fits pretty well with the intention of RFC 8719:
> [The North America / Asia / Europe] meeting
> rotation is mainly aimed at distributing the travel effort for the
> existing IETF participants who physically attend meetings and for
> distributing the timezone difficulty for those who participate
> remotely.
Exactly. I didn't think to quote 8719, but it captures my intent exactly.
We are willing to travel and adjust our internal clock, so we should continue
to do this, as it shares the benefits.
How many remote attendees did not come from +0800 (China, parts of Australia, etc.)
and +0900/+1000 (NZ, I think) to the plenary because it was at 0-dark-oclock?
(If we we go with Bangkok day time for 109, California night-owls might not
even notice, once they figure out that Wednesday occurs on Tuesday evening)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
