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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
