Hi,
It can also help if WG chairs try to regularly review and minimise their conflict lists wherever possible, so the scheduling team / software has more room to fit things in. Sometimes you see quite long conflict lists that aren't strictly needed.
Tim
> On 25 Feb 2019, at 07:47, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/24/19 10:34 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> That survey says that 62% of people who responded had a conflict.
>
> But if you look at the responses to Q13 ("Which
> sessions?") the only sessions mentioned consistently
> were spring/bier and detnet/{several things}. FWIW
> I've noticed that in session requests some chairs are
> asking to avoid things they've got people who'd prefer
> not to miss and others are asking to avoid things
> where they've got people who absolutely must be at
> both. I'm not sure that we're asking the right
> questions, on the one hand, and answering the right
> questions, on the other.
>
> While our tooling has changed and there have been a
> few other adaptations, I do think it's an issue that
> we're approaching how we meet pretty much the same
> way we did 25 years ago, despite massive improvements
> in remote participation tools and the increase in
> the use of virtual interims, distributed authoring
> tools, etc.
>
> Melinda
>
> --
> Melinda Shore
> melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Software longa, hardware brevis
>
