[J3] [fortran] Re: [EXTERNAL] [fortran] Selecting meeting dates/times for virtual J3 meeting #223

[Brian Friesen]

Hi everyone,

thanks for your timely feedback regarding the meeting format for J3
#223. I plan to schedule the meeting using options 2+4 from the
original list, in which plenary meets on each of the following days:
  - Mon, Feb 22
  - Tues, Feb 23
  - Mon, Mar 1
  - Tues, Mar 2

with plenary on each day from 17:00 - 20:00 US/Eastern (22:00 - 01:00
GMT). Subgroups will be responsible for scheduling their own meeting
times - no formal J3 time will be reserved for subgroup meetings.

If members like this modified format, we can repeat it in the future.
If not, we can revert back to the traditional format.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 5:35 AM Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101)
<thomas.l.clune at nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Agreed with all on subgroups.    Some subgroup leads (ahem) just had not properly anticipated the format last time around.  We'll be better organized this time.
>
> Regarding plenary, I really don't have a strong opinion, except for more time overall.   As a person roughly in the middle of the range of time zones, I'm least impacted by the variants.
>
>
> On 1/14/21, 1:11 PM, "fortran at standards.incits.org on behalf of Gary Klimowicz" <fortran at standards.incits.org on behalf of gak at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>     Reuben apparently can read my mind. I agree with what he says here.
>
>
>     > On Jan 14, 2021, at 7:41 AM, Reuben D. Budiardja via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > I prefer option (4): subgroup times should be left to subgroup to organize, since the end of the plenary times is already getting pretty late for some time zones.
>     >
>     > Best,
>     > Reuben
>     >
>     > On 01/13/2021 09:20 PM, Brian Friesen wrote:
>     >> Hi everyone,
>     >> We should finalize the format of virtual J3 meeting #223 soon; it is
>     >> currently scheduled for the week of Feb 22, and the meeting notice
>     >> must be published by Feb 8.
>     >> The most popular choice from the poll in the J3 discussion forum that
>     >> Steve created was Mon-Thurs (4 days total) at 3 hours per day. We
>     >> could also consider allocating some time for subgroups during this
>     >> meeting. Perhaps an additional 30 minutes could be allocated at the
>     >> end of each 3-hour plenary session. Or, subgroup meetings could
>     >> replace the final 30 minutes of each 3-hour plenary session if 3 hours
>     >> of plenary is more than required.
>     >> Another possibility is what Nathan Sircombe suggested in an earlier
>     >> discussion about the WG5 June 2021 meeting - two days on each of two
>     >> consecutive weeks, e.g., Feb 22-23 + Mar 1-2 (Mon-Tues of both weeks).
>     >> This would provide ample opportunity for subgroups to meet during the
>     >> intervening week between the two pairs of plenary sessions. If the
>     >> intent is for WG5 to try this format for the June 2021 meeting, then
>     >> J3 meeting #223 could be a useful test to evaluate that format.
>     >> To summarize, some potential formats for a 4-day format for meeting
>     >> 223 in February could be (all times in US/Eastern):
>     >> 1. Mon Feb 22 - Thurs Feb 25, plenary from 17:00-20:00, subgroups from
>     >> 20:00-20:30.
>     >> 2. Mon Feb 22 - Tues Feb 23, Mon Mar 1 - Tues Mar 2, plenary from
>     >> 17:00-20:00, subgroups from 20:00-20:30.
>     >> 3. Any of the above, but with subgroup time moved 30 minutes earlier.
>     >> 4. Any of the above, but with subgroup time removed, so that subgroups
>     >> schedule their own meeting times separately.
>     >> Options (1) and (2) would be a total of 3.5 hours per day; option (3)
>     >> would be a total of 3 hours per day. Option (4) would depend on how
>     >> subgroups choose to meet.
>     >> Please provide your input here regarding which format you prefer by
>     >> next *Wednesday, Jan 20* if possible. Absent strong opinions from
>     >> committee members one way or the other, I would choose option (1) for
>     >> meeting 223.
>     >> Thanks!
>     >
>
>