Re: Make an all-virtual IETF meeting a 24 hour affair

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Thu, 27 February 2020 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
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 888D63A0A0D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:31:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SJdbaeoX2w_6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:31:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06B4C3A0A10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBC736A29C; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:31:45 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1582813906; bh=d0RKyF35mnCugeeL29GVjbqELlf0NsTE/ItgT/P6u5s=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=QPmaGANLdlQCYYHeAMaghm1BFsHlb/+xs6jJ5Wy5ZtrCCozhwYlA7jD6szLHTuTsf GDeh+KLYNNfZGXkW1ikDkYkuIVLKKR5xr3qSkEyins5zCFFloc1++3CQk92DuUIG1t kIO2ZmDKoQVbM2y2RvvfpeGiGVMAqvSK/d5pHZWlDPpU2NZsaPkZ8JquAa85PVkJOj ahjxnA0UdRmYWQ6Q3Z9rOW0jxQO0pIrL5svsxAxH5nP9BKnxgc1lfhJG0qb2VufIPf L5zgjYqVBH71SJf4FEXZUMQdb5fOSEd3PjRgpCvB2KrQwP3R9EaPTVx+gNvtGI/Aly nyZBj/bRk3PbA==
Received: from appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF4EF3C0363; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:31:45 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:31:45 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <1640175469.18280.1582813905817@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU1xu0aGY--B281SjQzJZmk_nYmZZh9bcqZPeGegxFNUVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA=duU1xu0aGY--B281SjQzJZmk_nYmZZh9bcqZPeGegxFNUVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Make an all-virtual IETF meeting a 24 hour affair
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_18278_289363645.1582813905804"
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev5
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/u9QtFzKYv7KLNvhzTYFl1R88HOk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:31:55 -0000

>     Il 27/02/2020 14:06 Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> 
> 
>     There have been a number of comments that an all-virtual IETF meeting would be difficult for some set of attendees due to time zone shifting while they're in their home time zone. While it's impossible to hold a particular WG session that works for ALL attendees around the world, let the WG chairs choose, for each WG, what time out of the 24-hour clock works for the majority of their active participants. It'll be up to the WG chairs to figure that out for each WG, with the approval of the relevant AD. But there's no reason why all of the WGs need to meet during the same "daylight" hours if the meeting is all virtual. WGs could also have multiple sessions optimized for different parts of the world, to spread the pain. Just a thought ....
> 
But people that have to attend multiple WGs that meet on the same day would potentially have to stay up for 24 hours, if each of those WGs chose a different timezone. I think this would be even worse, and it would make it hard to pop into WGs that you do not normally follow, which is one of the added values of IETF meetings.

It is very hard to solve the timezone problem. A "majority of participants" principle would mean that the minority would get the WG scheduled in the night at each and every meeting. Multiple repeated sessions in different timezones mean that the group would be broken up into smaller groups that would not talk to each other (this approach really only works for webinars). Even rotating the timezone from a session to the next has risks, as each session will tend to be disproportionately populated by people in the local timezone, so the set of participants will differ and the consensus could take different directions depending on that, leading each new session to undo the previous one.

In the end, compacting the meeting into the daytime of a specific timezone and rotating the timezone through different continents one meeting at a time seems to be the fairest and less painful way, and that's what almost all global Internet organizations do.

(Perhaps this thread should move to the manycouches list?)

--

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com mailto:vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy