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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf