[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-03-25 14:40:13

I think asking attendees during registration which sessions they
intend to attend and building a conflict matrix would be the simplest
approach. Of course, attendee conflicts matter less than ADs, chairs,
and presenter conflicts.

David Harrington

-----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