Meeting times and DST

[Itamar Heim]

On 03/15/2012 07:46 PM, Simon Grinberg wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Karsten 'quaid' Wade"<kwade at redhat.com>
>> To: "arch"<arch at ovirt.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:48:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: Meeting times and DST
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 03/14/2012 08:51 AM, Simon Grinberg wrote:
>>
>>>> We are used to be outnumbered in most of the calls thus US wins.
>>>> We usually pin all multi party meetings to US ET.
>>>
>>>> IF we start pinning to UTC then it will cause conflicts with
>>>> other meetings scheduled by US people as some will shift and some
>>>> will not. Pinning to US ET guaranties that at least everything
>>>> shifts together.
>>
>> This is the other half of the problem that we see in e.g. Fedora
>> Project. Many do respond as you describe, based on the need of the
>> majority of the team. That means it's a mix, done ad-hoc - some
>> Fedora
>> teams use UTC because it's best for most members. But that's Fedora,
>> not oVirt ...
>>
>> The challenge is, the "we" who come to the meetings in #ovirt is the
>> superset to the "we" who have conceded that inside Red Hat, US ET
>> *is*
>> the standard (some of us have called it HQZ or RHZ. ;-D )
>>
>> Currently the set of people who come to the meetings are more largely
>> part of the Red Hat set, but that shouldn't always be so. Not even
>> all
>> the developers working on oVirt for their respective corporations
>> have
>> an HQ based in the US. What's the solution best for the current and
>> future contributors? Especially to make it welcoming to others to
>> participate?
>
> I don't think this will be the gating item preventing others to join oVirt :)
> Let's face it, the problem exists in many organizations not just Red Hat, practically any US based company uses this convention. I used to work for Motorola and then Cisco and it was always the same.
>
> What will happen is that if oVirt decides on UTC locking (which AFAIK never changes to day light saving time) it guaranties conflicts for everybody at some point as their own clock moved while if you lock to ET for example, you'll have many that will not be effected and many others that are effected but at least no meetings conflict.
>
> You will never be able to satisfy all but this does not mean that in order to be "fair and impartial" you'll guarantee that all are hit the same way :). I think that at least you can try to accommodate as many as you can.
>
> But this is just my 2c


main reason i think not doing UTC based is that most do have DST, and 
using UTC means half of the year the meeting will be at a different 
hour, rather than maybe 2-3 weeks out of the year