I was not picturing everyone adding their own conflicts. However, I thought
this might help us avoid some of the issues we've had in the past, where
obvious group-level conflicts are omitted, and meetings have to be rescheduled
at the last moments.
Margaret
On Oct 12, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
It would also be good to expose the conflict lists that the chairs have
provided ahead of time, so that WG participants can point out (hopefully to
the chairs) potential conflicts that the chairs may have omitted.
While this sounds intuitively very appealing, it seems likely to set an
expectation that the folks trying to schedule meeting times will juggle the
conflicts of all attendees. That doesn't sound like something that can
scale. (My impression is that the current scale of the task is at a limit.)
Even if it could, it dramatically increases the number of conflicts and,
therefore, the number of conflicts that cannot be resolved well. So, while
reasonable and well-intentioned, this seems likely to greatly increase staff
workload and greatly increase community unhappiness. All in all, not an
appealing outcome.
In contrast, publishing the requests for slots seems an easy and scalable
task. Since requests are usually satisfied -- that is, those asking for a
meeting slot usually get them -- it helps attendee "macro" planning, without
getting into the finer-grained day-of-week and time-of-day debates.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf