clarification on Raith scheduling proposal

Mark Topinka mtopinka at stanford.edu
Tue Jan 27 15:42:59 PST 2004


Hi Raith folks-
       Thanks to Hattice for the email.  Hattice and I just chatted on the 
phone and I realized I explained part of my proposal badly- I'm sorry- my 
fault.  When I said "10hrs/2wks" I was not proposing that users cannot use 
the Raith for more than 10 hours every two weeks.  What I meant to say is 
this: "at any given moment in time, a user cannot be signed up for more 
than 10 hours and each user is allowed to sign up up to 2 wks in 
advance".  This may *sound* the same as "no more than 10 hours of Raith use 
per 2 week period", but it's NOT the same thing.  With this new proposed 
system, once you start using a session on the Raith, that "erases" that 
session's hours from your total, and you are free to sign up for more time 
immediately!  (Which, with the new, stricter cap per user will be in on 
average, say, 5 days in the future?).  So even though the policy would 
be"10hrs/2wks" of reservations, that does not equal "10hrs/2ks" of use, 
hopefully!  I hope this helps clarify what I was proposing.  -Mark



At 03:13 PM 1/27/2004 -0800, Hatice Altug wrote:
>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