Even a simpler solution. If you (meaning Iljitsch) had serious conflicts,
then let the WG chairs know about these conficts. They may may not on the
WG Chairs' radars. That has happened to me, where WG members were
overlapping with groups that I was unaware of.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <
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.)
IETF mailing list