Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long write time users.

Hatice Altug altug at stanford.edu
Tue Jan 27 15:13:22 PST 2004


we can try 10hrs/2wk option.

(but:
1--it means 5hours/week !!,
2--if something goes wrong (writing/development/etching/...) for
long-write-time users this also means freezing the research for 2 weeks
because for us 3-4 hours time slot does not mean that much)

-hatice

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Topinka" <mtopinka at stanford.edu>
To: <raith at snf.stanford.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long
write time users.


> Hi Hatice and other "long-write-time users":
>       I hear your concerns, but I think that a simple 10hr/2wk or 8hr/2wk
> cap (note: lower hours/user combined with a 2-WEEK signup window means
> there will be ALOT of open slots!) really might solve your problems as
well
> as everybody else's.  If we impose a 10hr/2wk period cap, then I'm pretty
> sure there will be many many 8 hour windows open for you (and others) to
> sign up for all at once- no more waiting every half-hour to pounce on
coral
> :)  (I've done that too, and I know it's not fun!)    I think it's worth a
> try, and if it doesn't solve everybody's problems, then we can try further
> things.  What do you think of this proposal- do you think it would allow
> you to sign up for the time you need?   -Mark
>
> At 02:42 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, Hatice Altug wrote:
>
> >hello,
> >
> >One suggestion for dealing with many e-mails for the e-mailing idea is
that:
> >people can write their message in the subject line only, maybe like:
> >"Raith:6 hours, 12:00am-6:00am"
> >and these e-mails will take people's attention only if they are also
trying
> >to reserve time at that day, otherwise they can delete them right away.
> >
> >I think limiting time less that 10hrs/week is not sufficent for some
people
> >including me ( and I belive Gigi as well). The other point is that we are
> >not using this much time every week!!
> >
> >-hatice
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Lindsay Moore" <lsmoore at stanford.edu>
> >To: "James Conway" <jwc at snf.stanford.edu>; "Raith SNF Mailing list"
> ><raith at snf.stanford.edu>
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:22 PM
> >Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions?: Diverge this thread:: Needs of long
> >write time users.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I also like the idea of emailing the group to ensure that you can get
your
> > > intended time slot.  If you can get 1/2 hr reserved as the indicator
of
> >the
> > > beginning of your time, and then email everyone to  let them know that
you
> > > intend to reserve 6 hrs but that you don't intend to sit at your
computer
> > > for the next 6 consecutive hrs I think that the reservation process
would
> > > be much less time consuming and annoying.  The current game where
people
> > > will reserve a 1/2 hr when there is clearly someone trying to make a
full
> > > reservation, or the ongoing battles of alternate half hours (you know
who
> > > you are) are a childish waste of everyone's time.  I am not a huge fan
of
> > > getting 7-10 emails per day notifying me of everyone's raith plans,
but if
> > > it is the only alternative to our current situation, i don't see much
of a
> > > choice.
> > >
> > > Lindsay
> > >
> > > At 02:12 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, James Conway wrote:
> > > >Hello Hatice,
> > > >
> > > >I understand your needs for extended writing sessions on your
project.
> > > >The email lobbying idea would work -- but only if all users share the
> > > >limited resource fairly.  Unfortunately human instinct and their
inherent
> > > >psyche reverts to hoarding behaviors in times of limited resources
being
> > > >available to a large group.  This is apparent if you examine the
users on
> > > >the system versus those desiring to secure reservations and access on
the
> > > >system. To be blunt: The more aggressive users may in fact get all
the
> > > >resource.
> > > >
> > > >Query for ALL:  Would users whom needed longer sessions be willing to
> >lump
> > > >two weeks work of access into one writing session?  That in effect
would
> > > >give you possibly up to a 5 -20 hour writing session if you needed
it.
> > > >(This is dependent on the final limits we will establish  in our
Ebeam
> > > >Town Meeting.)
> > > >
> > > >Comments invited -- reply to raith at snf.stanford.edu
> > > >
> > > >James Conway
> > > >
> > > >Hatice Altug wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Hi everybody,
> > > >>
> > > >>I don't know how many of you like me but my patterns are very dense
and
> >very
> > > >>big so takes a lot of time. I don't mind 10hours/7day rolling but in
my
> >case
> > > >>for example it does not work 5hours one day and another 5hours
anothers
> >day
> > > >>(or 4+6...), it requires 7-8hours per one writing and for 8 hours
> >writing as
> > > >>an example I have to fight to reserve for 16 half an hour time slots
> >which
> > > >>is getting extremely difficults this quarter.
> > > >>
> > > >>Can we also make some regulations for users like me?
> > > >>
> > > >>My suggestion is: when someone starts reserving time, he/she can
sent
> >e-mail
> > > >>to users and can say I need this much of time so that peole don't
cut
> >his
> > > >>time. After he is done the next user can start to reserve by again
> >saying
> > > >>how much time he will reserve. It might result a lot of e-mail in
the
> >inbox,
> > > >>but it might also save time as many of us contantly checking coral
for
> >half
> > > >>an hour fight.
> > > >>
> > > >>hatice
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott D. Andrews"
> ><sandrew at stanford.edu>
> > > >>To: "Mark Topinka" <mtopinka at stanford.edu>
> > > >>Cc: <raith at snf.stanford.edu>
> > > >>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:22 PM
> > > >>Subject: Re: Scheduling solutions?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>I would also like to second Mark's suggestion of 10 hours/7 day
rolling
> > > >>>period.  I realize that it will hurt the heaviest users, including
> >myself
> > > >>>sometimes, but it seems like a fair idea that should help everyone.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>-Scott
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > >
>




More information about the raith mailing list