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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Please circulate this to your working group lists. The survey data will
    > be very important as we plan future IETF meetings.

I went through it yesterday.
Translating the UTC questions to my local zone challenged me, a bear of
little brain...  But as I went through it I realized that I wasn't sure
exactly if I was answering the right proposal.

I guess that quite a few options in the proposed decision tree results in
some variety of 4,5 or 8-track sessions over 4 to 14 days.  
Only one path results in a meeting like IETF107 where we had one track during
the week, and then a (marathon) month of online sessions.

The question: how easily would I be able to attend different 2H chunks was at
least well done.  You didn't assume that I'm less available at nighttime, but
let me respond.

Where I had a problem was that I had to think hard about how I'd adapt.
If I need to be up late (way easier for me), or up early (way harder for me),
once or twice in a week, then I can just lump it.

If I need to do this for 8,10 or 14 days, then I'll attempt to adjust my
cycle.  So the plans where we do 4 or 5 days of meetings, then a 2 or 3 day
break, and then more, are way worse than just 10 days straight!
I think that I was able to express this in the survey, but I'm not entirely
sure that it came across.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [