At 09:37 AM 11/6/2001 -0500, Fred Douglis wrote: >I agree, in principle. I wonder how well it works in practice? How many >people currently go for the whole time and attend meetings in every session, >how many go for the whole time and spend most of the time one-on-one, how many >go for targeted sessions,
the distinction between the above alternatives does not matter, because they all entail being around most of the week. how the week is spent becomes a secondary issue. > and how many don't go at all but would if they could >commit on a cheap fare in time? given the strong and growing attendance numbers, the response no doubt is that some people do not attend because of various costs, but we have a model that has worked extremely well for a long time and no signs that continuing to use it is causing new, different, or intolerable problems. The management of the schedule has a wide range of problems. However that statement is a non-event. No doubt many things could be done better, but most of the problems are trade-offs against various issues. There is no way to optimize this process. We simply make a particular set of sub-optimal choices, because that is the best that we can do. If there ever is a broad base of dissatisfaction, it will be time to re-open this can of worms, however attacking bits and pieces of it will not be productive. > (Less of a problem in the past but I fear a >big problem this time around. Heck, even with a "cheap" fare there are lots >of other costs...) thanks for mentioning this. in fact the most serious expense is the TIME for travel and being there. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
