On 2013-02-27 4:53 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 27/02/2013 09:28, Brian Trammell wrote: >> On Feb 27, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Martin Rex <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I have a recurring remote participation problem with the >>>> IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting >>>>slots >>>> in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not give the >>>> local time zone *anywhere*. >>>> >>>> I would appreciate if the local time zone indication would be added >>>> like somewhere at the top of the page, to each IETF meeting agenda. >>> So in this interesting discussion of UTC, Martin has actually made an >>>excellent point. Having UTC listings for the agenda would be very >>>helpful, or an alternative agenda showing UTC. >> >> +1. Given our high remote participation, I put UTC in the agenda for >>the MILE WG anyway (usually correctly, even). And given that the IETF >>often meets on one side or another of the DST change in local time, >>having an unchanging time reference would be helpful even for attendees. > >UTC time *and* date please, for people in whichever hemisphere happens to >be >opposite the IETF. > > Brian +1. UTC (in addition to whatever local time based on venue) is the clearest way of specifying a time. It's easily converted into other time zones by those who need to do so. Regards, Victor K >
