[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-03-26 05:40:56
On 25 mrt 2008, at 22:39, David Harrington wrote:

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.

Actually we pretty much have that today. You can get an auto-updating  
calendar from the tools page, with only the sessions in it that you  
select. So analysis of the sessions selected by people who use this  
tool could be illuminating.

A more formal mechanism like this would require more work both to  
build and to use, while the online blue sheet mechanism I have in mind  
will be extremely simple (no need to prepopulate it with sessions etc)  
and actually be somewhat more efficient to use than the existing blue  
sheets (which, I assume, will continue to exist).

On 25 mrt 2008, at 22:21, Steve Silverman wrote:

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  
possible to derive a set of WG "conflicts-to-avoid" from that info.   
would not be perfect but it would be a reasonable and automated  
place.  Whether it would be better than the current system is TBD.

I think these efforts could be complimentary.

I think
there are just too many WGs and too few slots.  But nobody seems to  
shorter slots, longer meetings, or fewer WGs.

The number of wgs isn't all that relevant except to the ADs, because  
nobody goes to uninteresting wgs. In a way, the meeting could be made  
slightly longer: on one occassion last year, the RRG met for the  
entire friday. This was very useful and would have reduced my overlap  
a good deal this time, but the chairs couldn't get all day friday this  
time, I assume because the rooms were no longer available friday  
afternoon. (I'm not advocating making friday afternoon part of the  
regular schedule, though.)

One thing that could help is split the morning sessions in two so more  
granular scheduling can take place. I'm also unsure why we need a 50  
minute break before the plenaries.
IETF mailing list