Responses and suggestions on Raith reservation policy

Mark Topinka mtopinka at stanford.edu
Tue Nov 16 14:05:19 PST 2004


Ryan has a valid point, too.. sometimes if I have extra things to write I 
wait to unload my sample until I'm sure the next person is going to show 
up, and this often means the my reservation bleeds 10 minutes over into the 
next reservation.  But I also don't expect the person before me to be off 
right at the time I arrive- rather, I expect that they will start unloading 
when I arrive (at the beginning of my reservation).  I do generally try to 
start the unload procedure immediately when the next person shows 
up.  We've never clarified the rules on what a "2pm to 6pm" reservation 
means- does this mean that the user before you is expected to be off the 
machine by 2?  and you're expected to be unloaded by 6?  or does it mean 
that the user before you should unload right at 2 (assuming you show up at 
2), and you should unload right at 6 (assuming the next user has shown 
up)?  I prefer the latter, because then if a user doesn't show up or is 
late, we don't let the Raith just sit around doing nothing during that 
time.  The other part of the solution is what James has been advocating for 
a while now: arranging with the user before you and/or the user after you 
so that you all load your samples at the same time, and we don't waste 30 
minutes on every handoff.    Sorry for the torrent of email here, but I 
think it's important to have clear rules that everybody understands and is 
happy with.  -Mark


At 01:20 PM 11/16/2004 -0800, Ryan Tu wrote:
>I would like to comment on leaving half an hour between reservations, which
>is something I do because in my experience, users are rarely on time for
>handoff.  I am only allowed 8 hours per 10 day period and to waste half an
>hour per session waiting for someone else to unload their sample is a
>significant waste of reservation time, especially when I have multiple short
>2-hour writes.
>
>If we can address the issue of people unloading on time, then I fully agree
>with Mark's suggestion.
>
>Ryan
>
>
>On 11/16/04 1:01 PM, "Jien Cao" <jiencao at stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> > I agree.  Each reservation should probably go immediately
> > after the previous one, or else leave a 2- or 4-hour gap in
> > between.
> >
> > However, in the case when there are already reservations
> > ahead and after, how should this work?  The newly reservation
> > still has to immediately follow the previous one, but is it allowed
> > to leave a gap between itself and the reservation after (which
> > has already been there)?  We should probably be flexible with
> > this case and not force a user to reserve the time he/she doesn't
> > need...
> >
> > Jien
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Scott D. Andrews" <sandrew at stanford.edu>
> > To: <raith at snf.stanford.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 12:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Responses and suggestions on Raith reservation policy
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> penalizes people who can legitimately get a write done quickly!?   I
> >>> believe my proposal ("you are not allowed to leave any 1/2 or 1 hour
> >>> block
> >>> between your reservation and another user's reservation.  And no
> >>> reservation shorter than 2 hours.") solves the sneaky-half reservations
> >>> problem that some people are doing,
> >>
> >> I second Mark's suggestion.  I think it is a very good idea.
> >>
> >> -Scott
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >




More information about the raith mailing list