Re: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:36 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[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]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>         >
>         > > On 2020-10-17, at 02:23, Michael Richardson
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[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
>