And for me.

> On Jun 25, 2020, at 8:59 PM, Victor Luchangco <victor.luchangco.work_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Tuesday, 11:00am to 12 noon ET, or 11:30am to 12:30pm ET is fine with me.
>
> - Victor
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 8:21 PM Hans Boehm <boehm_at_[hidden] <mailto:boehm_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> I'm not sure we were talking consistent time zones for some of this. It sounds like Tuesdays 11:00-12:00 ET would work for everybody, except it's slightly marginal for me? I'd prefer to start at 11:30 ET (8:30 PT, 17:30 CET) until it looks like we actually need the hour. Does that work for everybody? Jens might for the first time actually have work conflicts.
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Victor Luchangco <victor.luchangco.work_at_[hidden] <mailto:victor.luchangco.work_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> I can usually make any meeting that ends by 1pm ET (so 10am PT), except on Fridays, where the morning won't usually work,
> but I could do something at 12-1pm ET (9-10am PT). The Tuesday time, for example, works well for me. Generally, earlier is better for me.
>
> - Victor
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:32 PM Hans Boehm <boehm_at_[hidden] <mailto:boehm_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> I'll go ahead and cancel tomorrow's meeting.
>
> Yes, it would be great if we can find a time slot that's likely to work for everybody and in the fall.
>
> I think we should try to end no later than noon Pacific Time, and ideally earlier, to allow European attendance. I can usually make Monday after 10:00, Tuesday 8:30-10:00, Wednesday after 9:30, and Friday 8:30-10:00. If you are a regular attendee or would like to be, please let me know which of those slots you can make. AFAICT, this already avoids the new SG1 slot on Mondays.
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael L. Scott <mlscott_at_[hidden] <mailto:mlscott_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> I’m ok with canceling. We should also find a different time of the week for the next one, to get Victor back on the call.
>
> - Michael
>
>> On Jun 21, 2020, at 9:54 PM, Hans Boehm <boehm_at_[hidden] <mailto:boehm_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>
>> It turns out I have a conflict between our June 24th meeting and a floating point workshop.
>>
>> AFAIK, there have not been any SG1 meetings, so our status is essentially unchanged. If someone has a reason to meet, we could reschedule to a different week, or try to carry on without me. Otherwise I suggest just skipping this one.
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:51 PM Hans Boehm <boehm_at_[hidden] <mailto:boehm_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>> I don't have anything for tomorrow's meeting except a really brief status update. But we concluded last time that we should just go ahead and meet, and abbreviate the meeting if there's nothing to discuss. On that basis, let's meet as scheduled. The meeting will probably be brief.
>>
>> meet.google.com/sbj-cvgh-vnd <http://meet.google.com/sbj-cvgh-vnd>, 10:15a.m. PDT
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 6:05 PM Hans Boehm <boehm_at_[hidden] <mailto:boehm_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>> Let's go ahead and try to meet briefly. The only agenda item I have is a quick update on WG21 process under Covid-19, to the extent I understand it. If Jens or Michael Wong is there, they can probably do a better job.
>>
>> If there's anything else to discuss, let me know.
>>
>> Coordinates, more or less as usual:
>>
>> meet.google.com/sbj-cvgh-vnd <http://meet.google.com/sbj-cvgh-vnd> or +1 208-925-0196‬ PIN: ‪255 542‬#
>>
>> 10:15a.m. PDT
>