Re: [rrg] Deadline for critiques - and RANGER
Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Sat, 16 January 2010 18:40 UTC
Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4F33A67DB for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:40:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.229
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.370, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8k+JrlyjaEVV for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:40:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416C73A67F6 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:40:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.27]) by qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id WGAh1d00D0b6N64A4Jg6Ar; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:40:06 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.110] ([24.6.155.154]) by omta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id WJg51d00L3L8a8Q8PJg55N; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:40:06 +0000
Message-ID: <4B520803.6090007@tony.li>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:40:03 -0800
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
References: <4B519262.5080907@firstpr.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <4B519262.5080907@firstpr.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Deadline for critiques - and RANGER
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:40:09 -0000
Hi Robin, Robin Whittle wrote: > Short version: I think we need another two weeks to write a proper > set of critiques. I think writing the "rebuttals" > and the "reflections" won't take long - maybe a > week to do both. I'm sorry, but I disagree. In my humble experience, tasks tend to take at least as long as you allow them to. People procrastinate until the last possible second and then actually focus on the task at hand. This is what causes schedule compression and slips. The only alternative is to provide a schedule that allows those who are proactively trying to meet the schedule ample time for all aspects of the task and then stick to it. That's exactly what we're trying to do. Three weeks to produce 500 words seems like it should have been ample time. Tony
- [rrg] Deadline for critiques - and RANGER Robin Whittle
- Re: [rrg] Deadline for critiques - and RANGER Tony Li
- Re: [rrg] Deadline for critiques - and RANGER Robin Whittle