Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
On 25 mrt 2008, at 22:39, David Harrington wrote: I think asking attendees during registration which sessions they intend to attend and building a conflict matrix would be the simplest approach. Of course, attendee conflicts matter less than ADs, chairs, and presenter conflicts. Actually we pretty much have that today. You can get an auto-updating calendar from the tools page, with only the sessions in it that you select. So analysis of the sessions selected by people who use this tool could be illuminating. A more formal mechanism like this would require more work both to build and to use, while the online blue sheet mechanism I have in mind will be extremely simple (no need to prepopulate it with sessions etc) and actually be somewhat more efficient to use than the existing blue sheets (which, I assume, will continue to exist). On 25 mrt 2008, at 22:21, Steve Silverman wrote: The Blue Sheets only tell you where someone was rather than where they wanted to be. I suggest having every registrant, indicate some number (5?) of Primary WGs and a similar number of secondary WGs. It should be possible to derive a set of WG conflicts-to-avoid from that info. This would not be perfect but it would be a reasonable and automated starting place. Whether it would be better than the current system is TBD. I think these efforts could be complimentary. I think there are just too many WGs and too few slots. But nobody seems to want shorter slots, longer meetings, or fewer WGs. The number of wgs isn't all that relevant except to the ADs, because nobody goes to uninteresting wgs. In a way, the meeting could be made slightly longer: on one occassion last year, the RRG met for the entire friday. This was very useful and would have reduced my overlap a good deal this time, but the chairs couldn't get all day friday this time, I assume because the rooms were no longer available friday afternoon. (I'm not advocating making friday afternoon part of the regular schedule, though.) One thing that could help is split the morning sessions in two so more granular scheduling can take place. I'm also unsure why we need a 50 minute break before the plenaries. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
On Mar 25, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Steve Silverman wrote: The Blue Sheets only tell you where someone was rather than where they wanted to be. I'd also note that people may wind up on multiple Blue Sheets. I know that I have started in one WG and signed the Blue Sheet there and then wound up in another WG [1] where I have found myself signing a second set of Blue Sheets. Regards, Dan [1] Either the first WG wound up early (it *has* happened!) or more often there has been a presentation in the second WG that I wanted to attend and so I've moved over there after the presentations in the first WG that I wanted to see were done. -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTOVoxeo Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Build voice applications based on open standards. Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
On 25 mrt 2008, at 4:58, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The WG scheduling tool has 3 lists of groups to avoid conflicts with, 1st, 2nd and 3rd priority. I don't know if these are visible to anyone but the requesting WG Chair, but they're listed on the confirmation notice from the tool; I've made it a practice to copy them to the WG I schedule, and modify the list according to comments. So I'd ask: Were the meetings you had problems with listed in each others' conflicts list? - If not, it's a problem at the data input level. - If yes, it's a problem at the conflicts resolutions level. I don't know, I haven't seen these lists. Apparently the scheduling situation wasn't (much) worse for most others. In my case, I had huge overlap on monday and tuesday and then pretty much nothing of interest happened on wednesday and thursday. Although it's useful to have wg chair input on scheduling issues, I don't think that's sufficient. What we need is to see which wgs have overlapping constituencies. We actually do have this data already, in the form of the blue sheets. But obviously it's not usable in its current, analog form. So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same people and overlap can be avoided more effectively. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same people and overlap can be avoided more effectively. as someone who has been the victim of contact/email harvesting off the analog blue sheets, i'll point out that when i attend an ietf, i -never- sign them anymore. so go forth, make your tool. and please publish your data protection/privacy policies and remedies when said policies are breached. at that time, i'll consider the value add for me to avail myself of your tool. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same people and overlap can be avoided more effectively. as someone who has been the victim of contact/email harvesting off the analog blue sheets, i'll point out that when i attend an ietf, i -never- sign them anymore. By whom ? At the meeting ? They are never exposed to the public. Regards Marshall so go forth, make your tool. and please publish your data protection/privacy policies and remedies when said policies are breached. at that time, i'll consider the value add for me to avail myself of your tool. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
On 25 Mar 2008, at 10:08 , Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same people and overlap can be avoided more effectively. as someone who has been the victim of contact/email harvesting off the analog blue sheets, i'll point out that when i attend an ietf, i -never- sign them anymore. By whom ? At the meeting ? They are never exposed to the public. I thought the standard solution to Bill's problem was to write illegibly :-) Joe ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:08:02AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same people and overlap can be avoided more effectively. as someone who has been the victim of contact/email harvesting off the analog blue sheets, i'll point out that when i attend an ietf, i -never- sign them anymore. By whom ? At the meeting ? They are never exposed to the public. er... yes at the meeting, by folks sitting in the seats. since IETF mtgs are not closed, i think of them as open to the public and therefore exposed. it kind of helped when the press folks were given special name tags, but in a room w/ 50-100 people, it was tough to know who was holding on to the sheet and transcribing off it. (not to pick on the press per se about email harvesting - they are more likely to fabricate a sensational report w/o getting the speakers permission - but the effect is similar. these mtgs are public.) Regards Marshall so go forth, make your tool. and please publish your data protection/privacy policies and remedies when said policies are breached. at that time, i'll consider the value add for me to avail myself of your tool. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:17:36AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: On 25 Mar 2008, at 10:08 , Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same people and overlap can be avoided more effectively. as someone who has been the victim of contact/email harvesting off the analog blue sheets, i'll point out that when i attend an ietf, i -never- sign them anymore. By whom ? At the meeting ? They are never exposed to the public. I thought the standard solution to Bill's problem was to write illegibly :-) not a doctor or a lawyer and i have enough ethics left to not forge Steve Coya's name anymore. --bill Joe -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
On Mar 25, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Bill Manning wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 10:08:02AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bill Manning wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:22:05PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same people and overlap can be avoided more effectively. as someone who has been the victim of contact/email harvesting off the analog blue sheets, i'll point out that when i attend an ietf, i -never- sign them anymore. By whom ? At the meeting ? They are never exposed to the public. er... yes at the meeting, by folks sitting in the seats. since IETF mtgs are not closed, i think of them as open to the public and therefore exposed. True. After that, however, they are well guarded. Regards Marshall it kind of helped when the press folks were given special name tags, but in a room w/ 50-100 people, it was tough to know who was holding on to the sheet and transcribing off it. (not to pick on the press per se about email harvesting - they are more likely to fabricate a sensational report w/o getting the speakers permission - but the effect is similar. these mtgs are public.) Regards Marshall so go forth, make your tool. and please publish your data protection/privacy policies and remedies when said policies are breached. at that time, i'll consider the value add for me to avail myself of your tool. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
The Blue Sheets only tell you where someone was rather than where they wanted to be. I suggest having every registrant, indicate some number (5?) of Primary WGs and a similar number of secondary WGs. It should be possible to derive a set of WG conflicts-to-avoid from that info. This would not be perfect but it would be a reasonable and automated starting place. Whether it would be better than the current system is TBD. I think there are just too many WGs and too few slots. But nobody seems to want shorter slots, longer meetings, or fewer WGs. If somebody would invent either a time machine or possibly a body doubler, it would make things significantly more convenient! Steve Silverman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:22 AM To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness On 25 mrt 2008, at 4:58, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The WG scheduling tool has 3 lists of groups to avoid conflicts with, 1st, 2nd and 3rd priority. I don't know if these are visible to anyone but the requesting WG Chair, but they're listed on the confirmation notice from the tool; I've made it a practice to copy them to the WG I schedule, and modify the list according to comments. So I'd ask: Were the meetings you had problems with listed in each others' conflicts list? - If not, it's a problem at the data input level. - If yes, it's a problem at the conflicts resolutions level. I don't know, I haven't seen these lists. Apparently the scheduling situation wasn't (much) worse for most others. In my case, I had huge overlap on monday and tuesday and then pretty much nothing of interest happened on wednesday and thursday. Although it's useful to have wg chair input on scheduling issues, I don't think that's sufficient. What we need is to see which wgs have overlapping constituencies. We actually do have this data already, in the form of the blue sheets. But obviously it's not usable in its current, analog form. So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same people and overlap can be avoided more effectively. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
Hi, I think asking attendees during registration which sessions they intend to attend and building a conflict matrix would be the simplest approach. Of course, attendee conflicts matter less than ADs, chairs, and presenter conflicts. David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:22 AM To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness On 25 mrt 2008, at 4:58, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The WG scheduling tool has 3 lists of groups to avoid conflicts with, 1st, 2nd and 3rd priority. I don't know if these are visible to anyone but the requesting WG Chair, but they're listed on the confirmation notice from the tool; I've made it a practice to copy them to the WG I schedule, and modify the list according to comments. So I'd ask: Were the meetings you had problems with listed in each others' conflicts list? - If not, it's a problem at the data input level. - If yes, it's a problem at the conflicts resolutions level. I don't know, I haven't seen these lists. Apparently the scheduling situation wasn't (much) worse for most others. In my case, I had huge overlap on monday and tuesday and then pretty much nothing of interest happened on wednesday and thursday. Although it's useful to have wg chair input on scheduling issues, I don't think that's sufficient. What we need is to see which wgs have overlapping constituencies. We actually do have this data already, in the form of the blue sheets. But obviously it's not usable in its current, analog form. So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same people and overlap can be avoided more effectively. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness
David Harrington wrote: Hi, I think asking attendees during registration which sessions they intend to attend and building a conflict matrix would be the simplest approach. Of course, attendee conflicts matter less than ADs, chairs, and presenter conflicts. The best fit solution will be the one that screws everyone more or less equally... David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:22 AM To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Online blue sheets, was: Re: Scheduling unpleasantness On 25 mrt 2008, at 4:58, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The WG scheduling tool has 3 lists of groups to avoid conflicts with, 1st, 2nd and 3rd priority. I don't know if these are visible to anyone but the requesting WG Chair, but they're listed on the confirmation notice from the tool; I've made it a practice to copy them to the WG I schedule, and modify the list according to comments. So I'd ask: Were the meetings you had problems with listed in each others' conflicts list? - If not, it's a problem at the data input level. - If yes, it's a problem at the conflicts resolutions level. I don't know, I haven't seen these lists. Apparently the scheduling situation wasn't (much) worse for most others. In my case, I had huge overlap on monday and tuesday and then pretty much nothing of interest happened on wednesday and thursday. Although it's useful to have wg chair input on scheduling issues, I don't think that's sufficient. What we need is to see which wgs have overlapping constituencies. We actually do have this data already, in the form of the blue sheets. But obviously it's not usable in its current, analog form. So I'm offering to build an online version of the blue sheets so in the future, it will be easy to determine which wgs attract the same people and overlap can be avoided more effectively. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
