Re: Fwd: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 06 May 2020 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27EE63A07F5 for <>; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Awp4eeWCw04g for <>; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C9953A0814 for <>; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1623B3818F; Wed, 6 May 2020 11:41:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B725C; Wed, 6 May 2020 11:43:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Dave Lawrence <>
cc: IETF WG Chairs <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <19202.1588694030@localhost> <>
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: Wed, 06 May 2020 11:43:46 -0400
Message-ID: <26184.1588779826@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 15:43:52 -0000

Dave Lawrence <> wrote:
    >> Where I had a problem was that I had to think hard about how I'd
    >> adapt.

    > I suspect most of us struggled with that, because it's infinitely
    > complex in a way that I just don't think you can capture in a survey.
    > Hopefully some broad trends would be evident though.

    > Like, on the question about how many hours a day should be scheduled
    > for if it was in your least desirable time zone, I ranked the shortest
    > as first but the longest as second, because with the shortest I'd have
    > hopefully the least disruption to my sleep but with the longest I could
    > hopefully be more naturally awake for some of it.  But how do you
    > capture those thoughts in a way useful for analysis?

Exactly, I tried to say the same thing.
I can probably be somewhat alert at 2am to 3am once a week.
I can't do that every day though.

But, if you want me to be alert from 2am to 6am, then you might as well ask
me for 2am to 10am, because I've already paid the overhead.

    > The question about how easy things would be for various possibilities
    > around your least desirable time zone, well right off the bat that
    > seems to cap off "very easy" and "easy" as not being even valid answers
    > to the question.  I tried to rank them relatively from neutral on down
    > anyway, but maybe someone else would interpret that question more like
    > "well, I'll say very easy because of all the undesirable choices this
    > is least undesirable".


    > I have little doubt that the people who authored the survey feel just
    > as stressed about all the ambiguity involved I expect they got it good
    > enough to still get useful signal out of it.

This is why I thought I'd write my email.

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]        |   ruby on rails    [