On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 02:03, Richard Dobson wrote: > Not sure its really a real world situation to have a company wide roster, > you will only in a real world situation likely have the collegues you > communicate with the most on your roster, the rest whom you might want to > communicate with rarely you will likely add them to your roster as and when > (using a search capability in the client that searches a company wide > employee db), or just send messages to them without adding them to your > roster at all. I find it very hard to believe that companies will opt for > company wide rosters certainly not if the number of employees is over 50 or > so, and even then I doubt many would opt for company wide rosters as the > roster just becomes unusable over a certain level, and if people only > communicate with certain other people very infrequently or never whats the > point in having them in your roster in the first place??.
It seems that way to me, too.
Supposing you chat with people for one minute each day (in reality it tends to
be much longer unless it's just a memo), and you have 1,000 people you
actually chat to on your roster.
That takes 1,000 minutes of chatting, or 16-17 hours. If you did that during
a week (seems reasonable) then you'd only be doing 3 days of real work out of
every 5 days in the office. :-)
What would be much more sane would be adding everyone to all the contacts in
the same team, and then adding every boss to their subordinate. That's more
of a realistic communication path already.
TX
--
Email: Trejkaz Xaoza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Web site: http://xaoza.net/
Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
pgpdY7Yc1x1rB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
