[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness

2008-03-25 14:22:52
The Blue Sheets only tell you where someone was rather than where they
wanted to be.  I suggest having every registrant, indicate some number (5?)
of "Primary" WGs and a similar number of "secondary" WGs.  It should be
possible to derive a set of WG "conflicts-to-avoid" from that info.  This
would not be perfect but it would be a reasonable and automated starting
place.  Whether it would be better than the current system is TBD.  I think
there are just too many WGs and too few slots.  But nobody seems to want
shorter slots, longer meetings, or fewer WGs.  If somebody would invent
either a time machine or possibly a body doubler, it would make things
significantly more convenient!

Steve Silverman  

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:22 AM
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness

On 25 mrt 2008, at 4:58, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

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 list?
- If not, it's a problem at the "data input" level.
- If yes, it's a problem at the "conflicts resolutions" level.

I don't know, I haven't seen these lists.

Apparently the scheduling situation wasn't (much) worse for most  
others. In my case, I had huge overlap on monday and tuesday and then  
pretty much nothing of interest happened on wednesday and thursday.

Although it's useful to have wg chair input on scheduling issues, I  
don't think that's sufficient. What we need is to see which wgs have  
overlapping constituencies. We actually do have this data already, in  
the form of the blue sheets. But obviously it's not usable in its  
current, analog form.

So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in  
the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same  
people and overlap can be avoided more effectively.

IETF mailing list

IETF mailing list