I am chair of a body which has a predominant US and EU membership of the board. The lived reality is that for effective board meetings I have to accept I'm a minority of one in seven, and we meet at 3am body clock time. I am a participant in IETF in WG which have a predominant membership of US and EU active members who wish to discuss. I don't like this, but I accept the reality I am in a minority of 2-3 and we maybe have to incur the cost to meet at 3am local body clock time. Or 6am. It is extremely unlikely we'd meet in my body clock. If you told me there is a WG with a high bodycount in China and India I could believe they'd prefer to meet in their local shared timezones window. Wouldn't that make sense? In a 3-regions IETF model you might THINK the effective 10-to-seven window rotates to US, Europe, Asia, but I suspect this incurs body clock consequences which for more active, engaged WG members is highly unacceptable. The reality here, is that jetlag has always been a problem. I think its *possible* a fully-online IETF is a construct which is not 'within this time window' for all WG, all the time. "it depends" It's within the same week? Sure. makes sense. Plenary? needs to be clear. Each WG? drift as the informal consensus in the active WG (chairs, authors) determine. The corridor is open all the time. Coffee is at your own behest. I should add, that I think the last people who should determine the slot by fiat, are the IESG or the WG chairs or ADs. I think this is one of those times you have to "take one for the team" absent a very good reason otherwise. But I know that sucks. -G
