[rgchairs] Re: 65th IETF - WG/RG/BOF Scheduling

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> Sat, 28 January 2006 18:57 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F2vGP-0003tL-A9; Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:57:33 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EyuDb-0007O6-Ha for rgchairs@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:02:03 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00600 for <rgchairs@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:00:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from omr3.networksolutionsemail.com ([] helo=mail.networksolutionsemail.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EyuLi-0007NQ-97 for rgchairs@irtf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:10:29 -0500
Received: (qmail 3977 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2006 16:52:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( by omr3.mgt.bos.netsol.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2006 16:52:52 -0000
Message-ID: <43CD20E3.8070105@andybierman.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:52:51 -0800
From: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
References: <200601171608.LAA27087@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <200601171608.LAA27087@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:57:30 -0500
Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, rgchairs@irtf.org, bofchairs@ietf.org, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Subject: [rgchairs] Re: 65th IETF - WG/RG/BOF Scheduling
X-BeenThere: rgchairs@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF research group chairs list <rgchairs.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs>, <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rgchairs>
List-Post: <mailto:rgchairs@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs>, <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rgchairs-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: rgchairs-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Allison Mankin wrote:

>Hi, Henrik,
>I've taken agenda@ietf.org off the cc list so we don't keep generating
>tickets for them while we discuss the tool design.  Or should we move
>to tools-discuss?  I think this mail will get to the tool developer.
>>Also, I have lists of conflicts from previous years, which I use as a
>>base for the request this time.  I'd love to be able to just type
>>in the list, but the tool forces me to use the drop-down list.  A bit
>The purpose of this tool (I understand) is so that simple initial machine
>processing can be done on the WG chairs' scheduling inputs, before the
>human brain (the brilliant Marcia!) NP-complete effort of making the 
>actual schedule.

I think people are over-reacting.  The rendering of the "list-in-progress"
appears to be a text input box, but it is not.  I agree this is confusing.
It took me all of 10 seconds to figure out how to add multiple entries 
per line.
I think it's wonderful that this tools work is going on.  Some of us 
have been
asking for some automation in the process for years.

>Having seen a lot of the Chairs' unstructured requests, I know they are
>very varied, even to the form of the lists for conflict avoidance:
>misspellings, shorter names than the real short names, SIP/PING
>instead of both names, descriptive terms.  It's understandable
>but hard to use.

I pointed this out about 4 years ago by sending my rmonmib slot request 
in XML.
It was sent back of course and I was scolded for it, but I was serious.
The goal isn't to solve the NP-complete scheduling problem, just to
solve the data input problem.

>What I'm wondering is whether at IETF 65, the session will come
>up pre-configured with the previous conflict list, and allow the chairs
>to edit that...
>>The tool forces me to skip that and list first-priority conflicts
>>before I may list second-priority conflicts.  Is that necessary?
>I agree, you should not have to do this.   Something for the fix list, IMO.


Rgchairs mailing list