I totally agree - the better we can do at setting an agenda, the better. On Thu, Sep 6, 2012, at 04:55 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: > Hi... > > Will not be able to have a times that suits all, try to get a time > that suits most of people for that time and they can attend next time, > taking into account having ASF rules when it comes to off the mailing > list communications. > > An idea I would like to propose is to have a certain list of topics > (agenda) for a specific IRC meeting so different people can evaluate > whether they should/shoudn't attend that meeting and hence you get > only the people interested and less people means agreeing on time > easier I believe. > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012, at 04:21 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > >> The reason I'm opting for 21:00 UTC is that it's after dinner. > > > > That's totally reasonable... but 21:00 UTC is 17:00 for folks on Eastern > > time in the U.S., which is usually the end of the work day for folks who > > actually clock out at 5. (Actually, it's 17:00 part of the year, 16:00 > > part of the year since UTC is constant but you have daylight savings to > > figure in for many timezones.) > > > >> I'd not rotate times, as that will confuse people. > > > > I agree with this - but if we go with a single time, it's going to be > > inconvenient for someone all of the time. So in that case, I guess we're > > going to be stuck with deciding who gets stuck with an inconvenient time > > all the time. > > -- > > Joe Brockmeier > > j...@zonker.net > > Twitter: @jzb > > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > > > > -- > Thanks > - Mohammad Nour > ---- > "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep > moving" > - Albert Einstein
-- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
