[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Scheduling unpleasantness

2008-03-24 20:56:51
Diving into solutions space....

The WG scheduling tool has 3 lists of "groups to avoid conflicts with", 
1st, 2nd and 3rd priority.

I don't know if these are visible to anyone but the requesting WG Chair, 
but they're listed on the confirmation notice from the tool; I've made 
it a practice to copy them to the WG I schedule, and modify the list 
according to comments.

So I'd ask:

Were the meetings you had problems with listed in each others' conflicts 
  - If not, it's a problem at the "data input" level.
  - If yes, it's a problem at the "conflicts resolutions" level.

The solution to the problem depends on where the problem is, of course.

(Note: Conflicts at some level are unavoidable. Even bad conflicts. But 
if we can give the secretariat good data to figure out what those 
conflicts are, we're one step ahead.)


Iljitsch van Beijnum skrev:
Finally back at the office today...

While it is a fact of life that sessions clash at IETF meetings, I  
must say that Philadelphia has been especially bad in this regard.  
Does anyone else have the same experience?

If it wasn't just me, I think it's time to look at the scheduling  
algorithm in some detail, because from where I'm sitting, it's broken.  
My interests are mainly in the internet area + some routing and  
congestion related issues. The int area pretty much had two sessions  
the whole week except on friday, so I guess that avoiding overlap  
there is unavoidable. But there were instances where there were five  
of int, tsv, rtg and irtf routing/congestion at the same time.

IETF mailing list


IETF mailing list