ISSUE: Meeting scheduling

Brian E Carpenter brian at
Fri Jun 27 22:55:35 CEST 2003

Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> > There's probably a micro aspect to this, as well as
> > a macro aspect -
> > has exactly eight WG/BoF agendas listed, including three MobileIP
> > agendas and two general-area agendas.
> >
> > I really do understand our dependence on people who are willing to
> > come for the week, not just for a morning, but how can anyone
> > make an informed decision on what sessions they need to be at,
> > to accommodate part-time attendance plans?
> Moreover, the flexibility of the agenda is such that IMHO it is not
> possible to make make reasonable part-time attendance plans after the
> agenda has firmed up .. and then it is too late and costly (which
> was the one of the most important motives to begin with) already.

Having been involved in scheduling discussions many times, dealing
with complex clash-avoidance for essential participants, I really
doubt that we can do significantly better - the only possible change
is to shift the whole scheduling process several weeks earlier.
And that makes it very tough to schedule BOFs, given the iterative
process behind BOFs.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list