Oops - that would be 11:00 (eastern time). At 12:44 PM 10/17/2002, Lynne Rosenthal wrote: >Starting at 10:00 is fine with me. > >At 12:09 PM 10/17/2002, Lofton Henderson wrote: >>At 09:05 AM 10/17/02 -0400, you wrote: >>>[...] >>>2. Starting on time - that is no later than 10:05 >> >>That's sort of on time -- it only wastes about 10% of the hour. >> >>>(in case people's clocks are not exact). >> >>Really, can't we expect people to be able to know the correct time by >>now, if they have an appointment on the hour? If we build 5 minutes >>grace, then people will shoot for 11:05 and actually arrive at >>11:09. Etc...etc...etc... >> >>The meeting and roll call should start as soon as the minuter is present, >>and that should be 11:00 (okay, maybe 11:01). >> >>-Lofton. >> >>p.s. Do you want to circulate the phone number of the NIST atomic clock? >> >>p.p.s. Go to http://www.worldtimeserver.com/atomic-clock/. You can get >>a free client -- "Atomic Clock Sync 2.6" -- to install on your >>computer. It can automatically sync your computer clock with a server >>connected to the atomic clock.Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 13:00:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:11 GMT