Re: [proposal] IRC Meeting
On 2 September 2010 16:04, Francesca Ciceri <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Helen,
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 08:44:41PM +1000, Helen Faulkner wrote:
>> On 1/09/10 8:07 PM, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
>> > I've never used it, and I was curious so ... tadà!
>> > Here the link to vote: (I hope I've provided some reasonable options (I'm
>> > totally new to this kind of stuff) http://www.doodle.com/wxeexnzkgke5cn95
>> The options are no doubt reasonable in your timezone, but in mine they are at
>> 6am and 7am :( It's an ongoing problem in this game...
> Ooops! I'm not very expert in this kind of international stuff, so if you all
> have some standard time to the meetings (that fits every timezone) please, say
> it and we can decide for that.
>> I'll opt for the 7am timeslots but in practise, my chances of being awake are
>> high, but my chances of being awake and not having to deal with a hungry, busy
>> toddler at that time are pretty low (you try typing with someone trying to "help
>> mummy with hitting the keyboard" at the same time!).
> Lol (--> help mummy hitting the keyboard! if you'll say "fhjsgjjajhdsjlaf" in
> chat, now we know why!:D)
>>So I'll make it if I can,
>> but don't hold your breath.
> Can you propose an alternative hour?
> Maybe 22:00 UTC are more acceptable (I think it's not a great sacrifice for
> the other, especially on Saturday - the most voted day)?
Hi everyone :)
shows the time differences between UTC and Perth (Australia), San
Diego (West Coast, USA) and New Delhi (india)
So 2200 UTC is 6 am the next day in Perth, 3am the next day in New
Delhi and 3pm the same day in San Diego.
I would suggest that 1300 or 1400 UTC actually look like reasonable
times over that spread of cities but I would think that time implies a
Saturday slot all round?