Re: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 18 October 2020 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29703A0E00; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 14:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZnqIQYv_1EBZ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 14:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA0293A0E17; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 14:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7532C389AB; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 17:52:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id G-uIpqVnLjWq; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 17:52:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED55E389A4; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 17:52:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BD6375; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 17:46:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, manycouches@ietf.org
cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR14MB32805A368C8DE50E787556C6C3010@MN2PR14MB3280.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
References: <160288855079.14008.13967692974159638979@ietfa.amsl.com> <30344.1602894208@localhost> <FD995870-E9C6-4099-93AF-253F0A11F56B@tzi.org> <CADaq8jcKK5kUvU3v7+6gEaeqjqxtw-Bii5is_hoq1ugogCoWPg@mail.gmail.com> <20201017193610.GA39170@kduck.mit.edu> <CADaq8je4nFVKkGw3X+Yo53N1xaXrgNRvOw4ZaNA0mT3dsDi-kQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU3KwrKnT4tdkap6raiu3pTGRcGz0miJMSFmTPF-bg4wrA@mail.gmail.com> <21ab833c-c3f1-d70b-96c0-8139dd7092f1@labn.net> <CAM4esxTAQOm=-SwLF3zU18xG75YurKdF-or+hU28+M53+cjtAQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR14MB32805A368C8DE50E787556C6C3010@MN2PR14MB3280.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 17:46:38 -0400
Message-ID: <17841.1603057598@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/VQwS6qfU7LESLOAjO4XhRs7ZI_I>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 21:46:42 -0000

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
    > I have no interest in eroding that. but I think we could do something a
    > little more intelligent for virtual ietfs going forward. For example on
    > the virtuals that I scheduled, we call among the contributors and find
    > a time that work best for them. Clearly polling is not a great way to
    > do it for a whole meeting but, for example, we could be scheduling
    > based on a majority of attendees rather than on what might be a
    > hypothetical location in the future.  For example 110 could start based
    > on what is a normal start time for the  weighted average of eu
    > attendees for the last year.  I suspect that this will only make a
    > small difference given the distribution of time zones in each region is
    > only about 3-4 hours, but still seems less arbitrary and more
    > reflective of today's reality to me...

Are you saying that the time zone for the meeting would be driven by the who
has registered rather than what locale it was supposed to be in?

Or are you limiting it to EU attendees, since it was to be in Prague?

There are some chicken and egg if we try to do this based upon registration
for the current meeting, but I'm sure we could figure something out.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide