Hi Ian,
I agree, let’s have a meeting next Tuesday and we can agree on the logistics
there.
Thanks,
Ildikó
> On 2016. Nov 10., at 19:10, Ian Y. Choi wrote:
>
> Ildiko Vancsa wrote on 11/10/2016 4:57 AM:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the ISO week numbers better. I think it’s more consistent, gives a
Ildiko Vancsa wrote on 11/10/2016 4:57 AM:
Hi,
I like the ISO week numbers better. I think it’s more consistent,
gives a regular cadence and does not cause confusions with having a
meeting on the 5th week or not for instance.
My 2 cents.
Make sense. Then IMO changing [1] with biweekly-odd or
Hi,
I like the ISO week numbers better. I think it’s more consistent, gives a
regular cadence and does not cause confusions with having a meeting on the 5th
week or not for instance.
My 2 cents.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Ildikó
> On 2016. Nov 9., at 20:21, Ian Y. Choi wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
Hello,
IMO if there is an IRC meeting on every week with alternating times for
odd and even weeks,
having two bi-weekly schedules with alternating times would be
self-explanatory.
However, if the meeting frequency would be just one or two in a month,
then referring such as n-th week in every m
