<http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/>
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Victor Kuarsingh < [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > >
