🚀 go-pugleaf

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