At 09:37 AM 11/6/2001 -0500, Fred Douglis wrote:
I agree, in principle. I wonder how well it works in practice? How many
people currently go for the whole time and attend meetings in every session,
how many go for the whole time and spend most of the time one-on-one, how many
go for targeted sessions,
the distinction between the above alternatives does not matter, because
they all entail being around most of the week. how the week is spent
becomes a secondary issue.
and how many don't go at all but would if they could
commit on a cheap fare in time?
given the strong and growing attendance numbers, the response no doubt is
that some people do not attend because of various costs, but we have a
model that has worked extremely well for a long time and no signs that
continuing to use it is causing new, different, or intolerable problems.
The management of the schedule has a wide range of problems. However that
statement is a non-event.
No doubt many things could be done better, but most of the problems are
trade-offs against various issues. There is no way to optimize this
process. We simply make a particular set of sub-optimal choices, because
that is the best that we can do.
If there ever is a broad base of dissatisfaction, it will be time to
re-open this can of worms, however attacking bits and pieces of it will not
be productive.
(Less of a problem in the past but I fear a
big problem this time around. Heck, even with a "cheap" fare there are lots
of other costs...)
thanks for mentioning this. in fact the most serious expense is the TIME
for travel and being there.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464