Data

Dan Grupp grupp at snowmass.stanford.edu
Tue Jan 27 18:42:59 PST 2004


I would like to encourage people to gather data to support various 
plans. It's all there in the history list:

1)How many users/wk? Average? Min and Max?
2)Distribution of reservation times. (make a histogram of number of 
sessions of particular length).
3)Number of users who would use it if time were more available.
4)Trends in usage over time. Is it steadily going up, and how fast? 
Why are we in this crunch period, and will it last?

-dan


>
>
>
>>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
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Daniel Grupp
Visiting Scholar
Center for Integrated Systems
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
(650) 724-6911
FAX:  723-4659
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/raith/attachments/20040127/69151da2/attachment.bin>


More information about the raith mailing list