🚀 go-pugleaf

I am a newcomer to the interesting calendar/scheduling discussion that I
believe has been going on for some time. Among the important conclusions from
the discussion are:
a) Scheduling meetings differ considerably depending on the office environment.
b) An "agent" may be used to negotiate mutually agreeable meeting times.
c) Scheduling systems are more likely to be accepted widely if participants can
   maintain their individual calendar on a portable computer and "dock" them
   frequently (possibly once or twice a day) so that it is available online.
d) The issue of "Is it beneficial for one to look behind another's calendar"
   still remains an issue.


a) The prominent scenarios for an office scheduling are:
1) Each participant has equal access to anyone's calendar (can R/W on any
   calendar).
2) Same as 1 except that s/he can R anyone's calendar but only W his or her
   calendar.
3) A select group of participants (typically managers) having R access
   to all calendar's but (in)directly having W access to all (or most)
   calendars. Situations for this scenario was pointed out by Scott McGregor
   mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM - Article 236.

Technically, scenario 2) seems to be the most appropriate for which scheduling
systems should be aimed at.


b) An agent to negotiate a meeting transaction.
Craig Fields <1990Jul25.045719.21115@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> has implemented(?)
an application that uses a mail server (agent) that negotiates with the 
participants. I believe this feature would be very useful if the the
participants get to see the counter-proposal by a participant who cannot
attend a (tentatively) scheduled meeting. Of course, if the scheduling user 
decided that the participant(s) who cannot make it to the tentatively 
scheduled meeting are not crucial, s/he may confirm the meeting with the other
participants.


c) Portability of calendar
Susan Ehlrich [TOOIS, Oct 87] and Grudin [CSCW 88] describe situations in which
scheduling systems may be successful when scenarios require or is beneficial
to maintain uptodate online calendars.
I agree with Scott and Alan <WEX.90Jul26125605@dali.pws.bull.com> that 
portability is a prime concern to the success of online calendars/scheduling 
systems.

I would like to know scenarios in which online scheduling is compelling,
thereby making participants maintain uptodate online calendars.



d) "Is it beneficial for one to look behind another's calendar"
In article 233, Time Shea <SHEA.90Jul24181213@edson.East.Sun.COM> claims that
it is "not very" important for one to see inside others' calendars. I argue
that it may be important in resolving many meeting conflicts. The following
discussion is based on a priority-based, graphical scheduling system (called
Visual Scheduler or VS) that I had worked on in school three years back. A
paper on this system is scheduled to appear in CSCW '90 proceedings.

VS allows a participant to assign a priority to each event which is depicted
by a different shading. Also, a participant can leave a short description of 
the event which then appears on the graphical display of the calendar.
The scheduling is darker for high-priority events and lighter for low-priority 
events. A scheduling user quickly locates mutually acceptable time slots by 
stacking the participants' calendars together and looking for an open slot. 
If none is found, the least disruptive time is the one that admits the most 
light. In case of conflicts (as often is the case), a scheduling user can
look behind the stacked calendar transparencies to see a list of the 
participants blocking a time slot. S/he can make a spontaneous decision to 
schedule a meeting depending on whether a participant is crucial to a meeting
or whether s/he thinks a participant can be asked to reschedule a prior event.
Also, a participant can leave a short description of the event which then
appears on the graphical display of the calendar. 



I would appreciate if someone could post a summary of the important conclusions
drawn from previous discussions on this topic that I have missed. 


muru palaniappan