Max Nikulin <maniku...@gmail.com> writes: > On 20/01/2023 12:39, Tim Cross wrote: >> No, I disagree with that statement. That is old thinking based when >> meetings meant face to face meetings. Only meeting which have a specific >> location can have a time zone and even then, it isn't really the >> meetings time zone, but instead the time zone of the participants at the >> meeting. > > Tim, I am trying to say that any meeting either face to face or on-line may > be associated > with arbitrary primary timezone. Even when all participants are in Sydney > they may decide > to fix time in Darwin. It is strange, but it is possible. UTC is just one of > time zones > that may be convenient for on-line meeting despite no participant really use > it. Local > timezone is usually preferred for purely face to face meetings. You are not > realizing that > is decision since it is not verbalized. Consider timezone as something > unrelated to > location but just a set of rules how time offset in respect to epoch evolves > in time. >
and what you are saying is helpful how? In what way does what you are sayhing help address my use case? > UI might offer you to choose time in your timezone and to select another > timezone for > storage. For your convenience it still may be presented to you in your local > timezone even > it is stored in UTC or some other one. and I have said as much. So, how exactly is your contribution assisting with the use case I've outlined?
