IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: How to judge what is the fair site for participation

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Mon, 15 April 2024 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80CFC14F721; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sraCLsj7CmAO; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC871C14F6F3; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id C7AE180782; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:05:09 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1713171911; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: in-reply-to:references; bh=M1gJIJPSbQagHDVZ/6IJJj8SvaNUqknUHcJxtphSmms=; b=nKFuQqHqZqglBDK6KwsiYFvRkHWR0vJQMXUeHu9bIrFMjE4yWnigKOz3Z+7tgTm9ewrWPZ UPEVT0eisFehRMtwYEjVqzKilVeeGur5BY/z8IMbXqk/fSd2+j1lNQzZRA5WrSO0ioVoyA WU7bOLGN6Dm3nrNcjEsST4kLwanfNEIEdTjmgnsrU8vGXPzhmYRqihh2iPf4FdVEB9cCaJ 3pPS/TYjvid0pOOgBG2xKA23N15Wl0SlM4dIcfOxlnt9T8XTc/J8HDEM/Ke/Bz5AOUo6cB jwZkVaWEq3yb4KQztOdy8exOpSDxeQLMe1DaThrGIc/tVDUlcZ0HAhVjvS9qfA==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_55FF7A48-6F16-4E7F-BF05-B76C25A4079F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
Subject: Re: How to judge what is the fair site for participation
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <6052fb2bc9894686b73ca88cbbacb298@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:05:09 +0300
Cc: Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <FCF36CDE-B88D-4766-9EDC-706E52AB520D@eggert.org>
References: <6052fb2bc9894686b73ca88cbbacb298@huawei.com>
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-wYZDVj3apzh2vDWb9T1skRzTR8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:05:19 -0000

Hi,

On Apr 15, 2024, at 10:26, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> I have already proven with simple Excel calculations that
> if the goal is "less disturbance for sleeping hours" (overlap between the typical sleeping time of the person with IETF meeting time)
> then all meetings should be in India
> for IETF 111 participant's distribution.

the difficulty here is not the in doing the math for a given optimization objective, it's agreeing to what that objective should be.

For example, "less disturbance for sleeping hours" might seem like a universally good objective at first glance. But certainly for some individuals, it's not. For example, in my case whether that objective is good depends on what else is going on in the family during that particular week - there are weeks where I'd rather do remote calls during my local nighttime. And there are other weeks where I don't.

There unfortunately are no easy solutions here.

Thanks,
Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email