Re: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

All of the virtual meetings have begun at 12:00 or 13:00 "local" time. No
one seriously questioned this choice until it became inconvenient for
Eastern Time.

To start messing with the start time now would erode the principle of 1-1-1.

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020, 06:48 Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Andy,
>
> I'm fine for sharing the pain -- but let's not pretend this is fully
> scheduled based on Bangkok time.  I don't object *at all* to holding the
> meeting based on the typical meeting times at the planned location.  If we
> were doing so this for this meeting, we'd be starting 2-3 hours earlier --
> which would more fairly spread the pain IMO.  (Full disclosure, you and I
> are catching the worst of it this time and starting at the normal Bangkok
> time would have made a material difference to me. )  Of course, I do freely
> admit that I really have nothing to complain about given what our Asian
> colleagues are subjected to week in and week out with meeting times
> generally biased to work for NA and EU.  I just hope that future meetings
> really do start at the normal local meeting time -- or, even better, we
> figure out a less apparently random+some-biased way to "share the pain".
>
> There's time enough to consider options before IETF110...
>
> Lou
> On 10/18/2020 9:16 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>
> David,
>
> Speaking as another person in the upcoming midnight-6 AM zone ....
>
> Think about how the folks in Asia feel when we schedule a virtual meeting
> for our daylight hours. It's convenient for us, but not for them. We do
> 1+1+1 for a reason - to spread the pain. It's only fair. And to your other
> point, the survey results were very clear that people prefer a shorter day
> (6 hours) for the online IETF meetings.
>
> You talked about turning your life upside down to attend the meeting - if
> the meeting had actually been in Bangkok, then you would have had two 20+
> hour bouts of travel going and coming, and a week away from home. At least
> this way, you can still sleep in your own bed. If you don't want to become
> nocturnal for the entire week, then pick and choose which sessions are most
> important to you and set your alarm.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 6:34 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:36 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 07:33:09AM -0400, David Noveck wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 8:34 PM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On 2020-10-17, at 02:23, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It appears that session are scheduled starting at 05:00 UTC, which
>>> would
>>> > > be
>>> > > > 12:00(noon) Bangkok time.   It's really as if this meeting was
>>> being
>>> > > held in Madrid.
>>> > >
>>> > > I don’t think you are aware when Spanish people tend to get up :-)
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > Fair enough but I don't know when people in Bangkok typically get up
>>> and
>>> > I'm not sure it is really relevant.  Typically on-site meetings start
>>> at
>>> > 10am local time and go on to 5:30, creating a 7.5-hour window for
>>> meeting
>>> > sessions.
>>> >
>>> > Given that this is a virtual meeting,  it would make sense to widen
>>> those
>>> > windows to allow some amelioration of the problems that this creates
>>> for
>>> > some time zones, in this case, for those in the Americas.  Instead, the
>>> > window has been shortened to six hours and I'm not sure why.
>>>
>>> Could you expound a bit on why you think widening the block of time in
>>> which sessions occur would be helpful?
>>
>>
>> First of all, given that the current block (midnight to 6AM) was
>> unworkable for me, I was looking to provide options that would allow us to
>> schedule an nfsv4wg meeting during IETF.
>>
>> It never occurred to me that there were people who would attend the
>> entire 12Am-6Am meeting and had no expectation of people attending an
>> expanded version of that.  It now appears that there are such people but I
>> expect there will be very few.
>>
>> IIRC we have survey results showing
>>> that in a virtual format even the 7.5-hour window is too long to be
>>> practical, and having a longer window is going to push more of the
>>> session
>>> timeslots into times that are quite painful for more participant
>>> timezones.
>>> My understanding was that the idea of having a consolidated virtual IETF
>>> was to enable the cross-polination that occurs at in-person IETF meetings
>>> where most participants are attending sessions in most of the timeslots.
>>>
>>
>> If that is the goal, it does not appear to be realizable for those in the
>> Americas given the current ICT session times, except for a small group
>> willing to turn their lives upside down to attend the meeting. Although
>> these times were not chosen to make this difficult, if you were trying to
>> do exclude us, it would be hard to pick a more forbidding time slot.
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>