wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) (06/29/90)
I've been looking at this issue with an eye to implementing some groupware systems. One of the things I've been finding in talking with potential users is that people really resent having something authoritarian-seeming made explicit in the computer, even when they deal with it in real life. For example, Subject 2 was observed to have this interaction: Subject 2: "What are we doing about the XXX contract?" Peer: "I've set up a meeting at 2. You'll get the agenda as soon as the secretary finishes typing it up." Subject 2: "OK." However, Subject 2 explicitly rejected the idea of having an electronic calendar system which would allow his Peer to schedule this meeting automatically, with him being able to remove it if he didn't like it. That, he said, was "too authoritarian." Upon having it pointed out that the computer would simply be implementing the now-informal procedure, Subject 2 ventured the opinion that "having the interaction on the computer [made] it more authoritarian." Comments? -- --Alan Wexelblat Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com phone: (508) 294-7485 (new #) Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex "The first myth of management is that it exists. The second myth of management is that sucess equals skill."
lippin@brahms.berkeley.edu (The Apathist) (06/30/90)
Recently wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) said: >I've been looking at this issue with an eye to implementing some groupware >systems. One of the things I've been finding in talking with potential >users is that people really resent having something authoritarian-seeming >made explicit in the computer, even when they deal with it in real life. > >For example, Subject 2 was observed to have this interaction: > > Subject 2: "What are we doing about the XXX contract?" > Peer: "I've set up a meeting at 2. You'll get the agenda as soon > as the secretary finishes typing it up." > Subject 2: "OK." > >However, Subject 2 explicitly rejected the idea of having an electronic >calendar system which would allow his Peer to schedule this meeting >automatically, with him being able to remove it if he didn't like it. That, >he said, was "too authoritarian." I think the problem here is territorialism -- by putting something on Subject 2's calendar, Peer would be trespassing. I've never worked with anybody -- manager or peer -- who would have the audacity to write something on my calendar, even if it was just penciled in. The accepted protocol is to ask me to put it on my calendar, leaving my calendar as my private domain. This also has the advantage of making me aware of each thing that goes onto the calendar. I can then ask for rescheduling or clarification. If it went straight on, I could more easily overlook it. --Tom Lippincott lippin@math.berkeley.edu "Self meets Self at a cocktail party, exchanges business cards with Self, and thus becomes Self Proper." --Jim Bolin
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (07/02/90)
wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: >I've been looking at this issue with an eye to implementing some groupware >systems. One of the things I've been finding in talking with potential >users is that people really resent having something authoritarian-seeming >made explicit in the computer, even when they deal with it in real life. > >For example, Subject 2 was observed to have this interaction: > > Subject 2: "What are we doing about the XXX contract?" > Peer: "I've set up a meeting at 2. You'll get the agenda as soon > as the secretary finishes typing it up." > Subject 2: "OK." > >However, Subject 2 explicitly rejected the idea of having an electronic >calendar system which would allow his Peer to schedule this meeting >automatically, with him being able to remove it if he didn't like it. That, >he said, was "too authoritarian." > >Upon having it pointed out that the computer would simply be implementing >the now-informal procedure, Subject 2 ventured the opinion that "having the >interaction on the computer [made] it more authoritarian." > >Comments? > >--Alan Wexelblat Sure, since the computer has become the modern paradigm of the gears of industry that grind the soul of man small, and the garbage in, gospel out syndrome is in full flower, and nearly every adult has had the experience of trying to get reasonable behavior out of an errant computer billing system, the word from the machine, even when it is the same word, is going to be perceived as much more tinged with authoritarianism. It's about time for Asimov's three laws to be seriously considered for inclusion in any computer hardware/software design. Too many existing designs ignore "first, cause no harm to any human being". From the perspective of groupware, this almost requires an "any human can veto any machine action, subject to human review and confirmation of the machine's choice" to make the system seem acceptable to the user; there should _always_ be an effective route of appeal, one that protects the user until the appeal has been carried through. The tough part, as I noted in my previous posting, is keeping those appeals from stopping all progress. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) (07/06/90)
In article <1990Jul1.210621.13137@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes (in response to my
posting about groupware & authority):
From the perspective of groupware, this almost requires an "any human
can veto any machine action, subject to human review and confirmation
of the machine's choice" to make the system seem acceptable to the user;
there should _always_ be an effective route of appeal, one that protects
the user until the appeal has been carried through.
The tough part, as I noted in my previous posting, is keeping those appeals
from stopping all progress.
Indeed. I have discussed this possibility with my test subjects in some
depth, in an attempt to see what might make these systems more acceptable.
Most seemed to find a system where they could reject things as more
acceptable (no great surprise). However, the following exchange illustrates
why this may not be acceptable:
[Subject 3 and I have been discussing what would make a group
calendar acceptable. I have mentioned the idea of being able to
accept/reject a calendar entry.]
Subject 3: Well, I wouldn't be comfortable with that either.
Me: Why not?
Subject 3: Well, it might be that the meeting was really scheduled
by [Boss] and was just input into the system by [Peer]. If I
rejected the entry it might look like I was refusing to meet with
[Boss].
Kent brought up the "Garbage In, Gospel Out" principle. I agree and add
this as an example of "Gospel In, Garbage Out." It seems that the problem
here is the reduced bandwidth of the scheduling system. Perhaps adding more
information in the form of annotations would help?
--
--Alan Wexelblat
Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com
phone: (508) 294-7485 (new #) Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex
"The first myth of management is that it exists. The second myth
of management is that sucess equals skill."bjones@ssc-vax.UUCP (Robert F. Jones) (07/06/90)
In article <1990Jun29.180641.18465@agate.berkeley.edu>, lippin@brahms.berkeley.edu (The Apathist) writes: Recently wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) said: >For example, Subject 2 was observed to have this interaction: > > Subject 2: "What are we doing about the XXX contract?" > Peer: "I've set up a meeting at 2. You'll get the agenda as soon > as the secretary finishes typing it up." > Subject 2: "OK." >However, Subject 2 explicitly rejected the idea of having an electronic >calendar system which would allow his Peer to schedule this meeting >automatically, with him being able to remove it if he didn't like it. That, >he said, was "too authoritarian." > I think the problem here is territorialism -- by putting something on > Subject 2's calendar, Peer would be trespassing. I've never worked > with anybody -- manager or peer -- who would have the audacity to > write something on my calendar, even if it was just penciled in. > The accepted protocol is to ask me to put it on my calendar, leaving > my calendar as my private domain. This also has the advantage of > making me aware of each thing that goes onto the calendar. I can then > ask for rescheduling or clarification. If it went straight on, I > could more easily overlook it. With this in mind, it should be simple to allow your software to 1) set a tentative meeting time, 2) mail out a (possibly canned) request to those who need to attend requsting feedback, and 3) after giving the recipient the mail, ask them if they agree to add that meeting to their calendar. Seems simple enough to me..... .....rfj..... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- standard disclaimer applies ========================== phone: (206) 773-2102 uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bjones or ssc-vax!bjones@beaver.cs.washington.edu snail: The Boeing Company, P.O. Box 3999, M/S 8K-04, Seattle, WA 98124-2499
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker) (07/06/90)
Normally I wouldn't stick my neck into this discussion as I've not had any experience with groupware (alas the poor unfortunate soul!) but in the following message wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: >I've been looking at this issue with an eye to implementing some groupware >systems. One of the things I've been finding in talking with potential >users is that people really resent having something authoritarian-seeming >made explicit in the computer, even when they deal with it in real life. > >For example, Subject 2 was observed to have this interaction: > > Subject 2: "What are we doing about the XXX contract?" > Peer: "I've set up a meeting at 2. You'll get the agenda as soon > as the secretary finishes typing it up." > Subject 2: "OK." > >However, Subject 2 explicitly rejected the idea of having an electronic >calendar system which would allow his Peer to schedule this meeting >automatically, with him being able to remove it if he didn't like it. That, >he said, was "too authoritarian." > >Upon having it pointed out that the computer would simply be implementing >the now-informal procedure, Subject 2 ventured the opinion that "having the >interaction on the computer [made] it more authoritarian." > >Comments? > >--Alan Wexelblat It strikes me that the computer program is mimicing the real world in a too rigid manner. Although at the mid management level and above there may be a need for a peer or "other" to organize another's schedule book I think that Personal Communications Theory might put things into perspective. Everyone knows about "private space", "personal space", "group space", and "public space". The groupware concept may be infringing on a "computer private space" when it allows outsiders to alter the appointment schedule. I will try to use an analogy. I have three appointment schedulers, a private one, an office one, and a generic one. My wife has permission to alter all three but she better talk to me first about the private schedule prior to even attempting to book something in it. For the office scheduler, she can make suggestions by penciling in appointments and for the public one we both make appointments and then discuss how we will manage them. BTW, my wife is not my secretary nor in any way associated with my regular office work. My secretary only has permission to suggest alterations to my office scheduler and has almost pure freedom for penciling in pending appointments that are meta to the job but necessary. I take almost full control over my private scheduler, take much less interest in the public one except to make sure that there are no conflicts with either my private schedule of myu office schedule and lkewise with my office scheduler. Even though I work in a quite informal office and our subgroups and subinteractions are even more informal I would tend to highly resent anyone attempting to make an appointment for me in my private schedule without approaching me first to find out if I am willing to entertain the tenative appointment. I permit collegues and our secretaries to make such changes to my office scheduler with the caveat that if needs be the tentative appointment changes to suit me and the group. Just about everyone in this institution tries to make appointments on my public scheduler and when I can I fit things in, when I can't I apologise for missing the function. Any groupware product should respect these "spaces" because I believe that as we grow with our computers they become an extension of ourselves and should be treated as such. Just my rather long winded $0.02 worth. Kevin Crocker kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca -or- {alberta,...}!atha!kevinc -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc,attvcr}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA
wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) (07/06/90)
In one sentence, what Kevin is saying is that scheduling an appointment is not a simple thing. I wonder if that is true, but orthogonal to the problem. Let's try this: Kevin, which (if any) of the three calendars and associated functions would you be willing to have automated (assuming the relevant persons - wife, secretary, you, etc.) had access to the same online calendar. -- --Alan Wexelblat Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com phone: (508) 294-7485 (new #) Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex "The aim of life, its only aim, is to be free. Free of what? Free to do what? Only to be free, that is all."
plogan@mentor.com (Patrick Logan) (07/08/90)
In article <1984@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca> kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker) writes: > Normally I wouldn't stick my neck into this discussion as I've not had > any experience with groupware (alas the poor unfortunate soul!) but in > the following message... > > [Main text deleted.] > > Kevin Crocker > kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca -or- {alberta,...}!atha!kevinc I'm writing this with the same disadvantage. I have just one observation. That is, even within one organization various people have their own preferences for maintaining their calendar[s]. Shouldn't a scheduling application be flexible enough to accomodate the range of preferences as long as it accomplishes the organization's goal of speedier, accurate scheduling? What attempts have been made along these lines? I'm very ignorant of groupware in general. -- Patrick Logan uunet!mntgfx!plogan | Mentor Graphics Corp. 8500 SW Creekside P | Beaverton, Oregon 97005-7191 |
mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) (07/12/90)
In article <1990Jul7.185933.1366@mentor.com>, plogan@mentor.com (Patrick Logan) writes: > I'm writing this with the same disadvantage. I have just one > observation. That is, even within one organization various people > have their own preferences for maintaining their calendar[s]. > Shouldn't a scheduling application be flexible enough to accomodate > the range of preferences as long as it accomplishes the organization's > goal of speedier, accurate scheduling? > It is interesting that people want a forcing function on their computer calendar's that isn't on their paper ones. Paper calendars do not have a physical forcing function that prevents them from being written on by other people. At best, they may not be physically accessible often. But when they are, the function that people use is a SOCIOLOGICAL one. Typically, they create a social policy by telling people "Don't write in my calendar". The use of a sociological function, instead of a physical forcing function is what allows the "flexibility" mentioned above. I can establish one case for calendar and someone else can establish a different policy for theirs. People can use their judgement for handling exceptions: "I know Bill doesn't usually like people to add appointments into his calendar without permission, but he's not around, and the company president explictly requested his attendance..." Use of sociological functions can work even on computer systems, (in fact I have seen this happen to myself and others with shared computer calendars). But many programmers seem to be upset when the sociological solutions are not converted into forcing functions implemented by the computer system itself. Unfortunately, this often leads to either less flexibility, or more complexity for the user to learn how to configure the system to meet their requirements. Scott L. McGregor mcgregor@atherton.com
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker) (07/13/90)
O.K. Alan, I'll bite. Here's what you stated and folowing is how I would respond. In article <WEX.90Jul6115019@sitting.pws.bull.com> wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: >Let's try this: Kevin, which (if any) of the three calendars and associated >functions would you be willing to have automated (assuming the relevant >persons - wife, secretary, you, etc.) had access to the same online >calendar. First off we don't have groupware here so there is practically no way that anyone could cross the invisible private or personal spaces associated with this type of process. However,... I am in the process of automating my personal calendar which has both advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include more control and more privacy and less likelihood of transgressions. disadvantages are less flexibility, less portability, and the loss of some ability to permit others to "suggest" appointments. The interesting thing is that I leave my office open and people often put little pink slips about meetings on my chair. They don't paste stickies to my screen as I have made it abundantly clear that I don't enjoy cleaning glue off my monitor. Still, some people still will not even enter my office (it has nothing to do with the fact that my office looks like a bomb site :-)) becasue of their cultural background that has different rules about personal and private space. This kind of thing is very individual and extends into the technological environment, at least IMHO. BUT, to get back to the question. Although my norms, cultural background and experience would make me want to make my private schedule closely held, I think that I would like to try it out to see. KEvin -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc,attvcr}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker) (07/13/90)
In article <WEX.90Jul6115019@sitting.pws.bull.com> wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: >Let's try this: Kevin, which (if any) of the three calendars and associated >functions would you be willing to have automated (assuming the relevant >persons - wife, secretary, you, etc.) had access to the same online >calendar. Alan, after reading my post it struck me that although I would like to try it (putting all three up and open to the various people) I still want to be able to control who has access to each schedule and for the private schedule I still want to exercise the final say in what goes in. I guess what I'm saying is that I'd accept a temporary "pencilled" in appointment but I reserve the right to accept or not accept the suggestion. Oh well, I'll probably miss a whole bunch of this discussion now since I'm going on holidays for about 4 weeks. If anyone would like to keep me up to date by mailing stuff to me I'd be very grateful. Please only one person mail things. There see!!!!, I've just opened up a psuedo scheduler in the public arena -- no problem at all. Just don't tell me that I have to be at a meeting on August 3 at 8:30 a.m. in Palo Alto or some such place. :-) Kevin -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc,attvcr}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA
wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) (07/18/90)
So what I get from Kevin's posting (enjoy your vacation) is that you're really fairly unwilling to have the system automated, mostly for reasons like feeling out of control. This more or less supports my original thesis, but it doesn't offer solutions. Are we truly at an impasse? That is, have we come to a point where people are unwilling to get the benefits of on-line scheduling because the drawbacks outweigh them, or because the drawbacks include non-negotiable items which will always defeat such systems no matter what the benefits offered? -- --Alan Wexelblat Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com phone: (508) 294-7485 (new #) Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex "The aim of life, its only aim, is to be free. Free of what? Free to do what? Only to be free, that is all."
janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) (07/19/90)
In article <WEX.90Jul18111259@dali.pws.bull.com> wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes:
So what I get from Kevin's posting (enjoy your vacation) is that you're
really fairly unwilling to have the system automated, mostly for reasons
like feeling out of control.
A bit more. The willingness to consider a "pencilled-in" appointment might
be stronger than we think. What if we could see "scheduled events", which we
have not committed to, on our calendar?
--
Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 494-4763
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) (07/20/90)
In article <JANSSEN.90Jul18175044@holmes.parc.xerox.com> janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) writes:
The willingness to consider a "pencilled-in" appointment might be
stronger than we think. What if we could see "scheduled events", which
we have not committed to, on our calendar?
Someone sent me email with a similar suggestion. I don't think this would
work because it would lead to the person who scheduled the meeting having
too high a degree of uncertainty. She'd have to go around and ask everyone
whether they were coming or not. This would lead to a huge decrease in the
value of the information on the system which would lead to people stopping
using it.
I think.
--
--Alan Wexelblat
Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com
phone: (508) 294-7485 (new #) Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex
"The aim of life, its only aim, is to be free. Free of what? Free to
do what? Only to be free, that is all."mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) (07/20/90)
In article <JANSSEN.90Jul18175044@holmes.parc.xerox.com>, janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) writes: > In article <WEX.90Jul18111259@dali.pws.bull.com> wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: > > So what I get from Kevin's posting (enjoy your vacation) is that you're > really fairly unwilling to have the system automated, mostly for reasons > like feeling out of control. > > A bit more. The willingness to consider a "pencilled-in" appointment might > be stronger than we think. What if we could see "scheduled events", which we > have not committed to, on our calendar? > -- > Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 494-4763 > Xerox Palo Alto Research Center > 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304 This illustrates a good point. In a computer system, "pencilled in" and "scheduled" have undefined representations. But the semantics of how you explain them may have a great effect on the reaction to the system. For example, if I want to "pencil-in" an event, I open your schedule and mark an area out on it, and label it with the event name. The computer notes that I created this event. When you look at your schedule you see this event that I put in. It is easy to see that someone else put it in, because it is highlighted in a way that indicates that its status is "new, created by someone else, tentative until accepted". I don't like you writing in my calendar, so I deleter your entry. But I might think "I hate this calendar system because other people write in my calendar and I don't want them to, and I have to keep cleaning it up." It is also possible to describe the system as a notified of scheduled events. I might look into your calendar, and based upon times that seem open, I might schedule an event. I leave a "post it" in your calendar showing you the time that you are invited and when and where the event is. Of course you can always ignore or remove the post-it note. In the computer system, this might be implemented the same way as the situation above, where a calendar entry is highlighted in a special way, and the owner confirms or denies it. While the implementations may be precisely the same, the semantics of what you are doing are described differently, and these differences can be sufficient to affect acceptance of the new technology. This is what I meant in an earlier posting about how the sociology of human interactions and conventions will affect acceptance of any particular groupware system. Another good example of this was the trials of the Action Technologies' "the Coordinator" product discussed at CSCW '88. People in different companies with different conventions had different reactions to the choice of words such as "request", "accept","refuse","counter-offer", etc. For some companies these words were too formal: at some companies, "requests" are really demands, but said more politely. It is really unacceptable to "refuse" those requests, etc. Because cultural conventions vary widely between companies, and even within companies, products may not be accepted in one company simply because of the semantic descriptions attached to the implementations. The Coordinator was a success at EDS (where a strongly hierarchical and formal communication structure was the norm), a failure at Pacific Bell with its informal structure, and a mixed case at HP where success or failure varied with sub-cultures. Scott McGregor mcgregor@atherton.com
janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) (07/20/90)
In article <WEX.90Jul19173122@dali.pws.bull.com> wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: In article <JANSSEN.90Jul18175044@holmes.parc.xerox.com> janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) writes: The willingness to consider a "pencilled-in" appointment might be stronger than we think. What if we could see "scheduled events", which we have not committed to, on our calendar? Someone sent me email with a similar suggestion. I don't think this would work because it would lead to the person who scheduled the meeting having too high a degree of uncertainty. She'd have to go around and ask everyone whether they were coming or not. This would lead to a huge decrease in the value of the information on the system which would lead to people stopping using it. Ah, but what if by clicking on the pencilled-in suggestion you can either contact the person, reject the time/date suggested, or confirm your attendance? Actually, the design is more subtle than this, and Alan and I have had this discussion before, but a dual scheme -- proposal to the user, and buy-in by the user, with freedom to reject -- is the keystone. Bill -- Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 494-4763 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304
stanh@meyerhof.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Stan Hanks) (07/20/90)
Regarding scheduling, have you considered this: if the user hasn't blocked it off, it *SHOULD* be free to be scheduled by someone else. That makes it the responsibility of the user to block his own time. I know I routinely block the hour before and after lunch, the first and last hours of the day, and other blocks of time during the week to do "real work" rather than going to meetings, etc. which is largely what I seem to be mostly doing these days. Every scheduling system I have ever used, from (God forbid!) PROFS under VM/CMS through Post-Its and a secretary has had this feature. And, there's a reason for it: there is about a 85% chance at any given time that I just won't be available for any kind of interactive scheduling. If someone else can't just schedule time with me, frankly it just won't happen. I strongly recommend that you talk to people who are substantially busier than you are before deciding how stuff like this ought to work. Stanley P. Hanks Direeecttor, Information Technology Planning and Development Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston TX 77030, Mail Stop: IR-3 e-mail: stanh@bcm.tmc.edu voice: (713) 798-4649 fax: (713) 798-3729
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (07/20/90)
In article <WEX.90Jul19173122@dali.pws.bull.com> wex@dali.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: >In article <JANSSEN.90Jul18175044@holmes.parc.xerox.com> janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) writes: > The willingness to consider a "pencilled-in" appointment might be > stronger than we think. What if we could see "scheduled events", which > we have not committed to, on our calendar? > >Someone sent me email with a similar suggestion. I don't think this would >work because it would lead to the person who scheduled the meeting having >too high a degree of uncertainty. She'd have to go around and ask everyone >whether they were coming or not. This would lead to a huge decrease in the >value of the information on the system which would lead to people stopping >using it. > >I think. Standard computer science problem! ;-) You need a "two phase commit" algorithm: Manager: (type, type) schedule meeting for 3PM Wednesday if 8 of the following 10 can attend and commit by 5 this afternoon. Emps0-9: Oho! 3PM Wed., huh? Well, I can/cannot make it - (type) System: 9 agreed in time, meeting scheduled, promise of minutes to those not attending, note to manager meeting is on, note to emps0-9, meeting is on. That way, nobody gets a calendar item without a chance to say yes/no, manager knows whom to expect and can still cancel if critical person is missing, when item is posted to calendars, it is anticipated and causes less "ego damage", human intervention can help prevent scheduling conflicting items while the meeting question is open. I think methods along these lines can remove most of the objections, and closely parallel the manager going around asking her staff "can you do a meeting at 3 Wednesday", and then making a second pass to say "we have a quorum, the meeting is on." The space in the calendar should be held open between "I can attend" and "the meeting is on" of course, with a warning but no lock on the time in the period before the "I can attend" response has been given. Comments? Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
cfields@athena.mit.edu (Craig Fields) (07/27/90)
Actually, the question I asked in the summary of how my calendar program works was intended more along the lines of "does anyone have any major problems with this model," supposing that it actually does do most of the things you would want reasonably. I left out a lot of details about the system in order to just present the model, but here are some more details of it in answers to Alan Wexelblat's comments. > First off, there are the standard problems with using email for > notifications in that (1) you can't tell when/if a message is delivered; (2) > you can't tell when/if someone's read the message you're interested in. (1) The server I have written does in fact remember whether or not a user has seen a given message, and currently passes this information to the application should it ask. I'm not exactly sure whether I should have the application give this information out, because it may conflict with some users' feelings about privacy. (2) You can never tell if the user has read something in an automated system unless they tell you in some way. You could tell whether or not it had been shown to the user, but I have no plans for this. > What will happen when two people have "incorporated" the meeting into > their calendars, but then the organizer decides to change it as a > result of one person's objection? Can the other calendars be reliably > "rolled back" to the state they were in before incorporation? Yes. Each transaction through the server has a unique number, and all related transactions subsequent to it (be they changes or responses) refer to it as a base. > Third, if someone wants to counter-propose, how will they know a good time > to suggest? Will they have access to the same set(s) of calendars that the > meeting originator did? Good question. Accessibility of a calendar is strictly up to the owner of that calendar (according to the file protections they have set on the file or directory). The concept of counter-proposals, except for meetings of only two or three people, may not be practical; the best thing is probably just to say "no," and list a set of good times, or say why this particular time was bad (if it was in fact unscheduled). (me:) > In addition to this, the recipient chooses whether to > add this appointment to the calendar or not, and whether or not it > should show up as time that s/he is "busy." (Alan:) > The concept of adding an appointment but not having the time show up as busy > strikes me as kind of odd and likely to increase your rate of collisions. Um... This feature is intended to make it a choice of the user. They may want it to show up on their calendar, but not actually plan to attend, and so don't want it to show as busy. I wasn't too explicit. :-) > Fifth, if I have made a response/counter-proposal to a meeting, how long > must I wait to know if that time is committed or if my suggestion will be > adopted? Say the meeting is created tentative, and you counter-propose. This will go back to the initiator, who after getting a sufficient number of replies, will decide what to do, be it try a reschedule or finalize that time. They will at that point send out a reschedule or finalize message. Reschedule/finalize/cancel will be handled decently by the application due to the aforementioned transaction number. So it's up to the initiator how long it takes. > Do I see other people's counter-proposals? This is not planned, but simple to add. You will just see the updates from the initiator. > None of these are total show-stoppers, but you *did* ask... Yup! Thanks. Unless people are generally interested in all this, any further questions about details may want to go straight to me. Craig Fields cfields@athena.mit.edu MIT-Project Athena