idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits56375/draft-nottingham-scheduling-online-meetings-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (2 December 2021) is 169 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 317, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Nottingham 3 Internet-Draft 2 December 2021 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice 5 Expires: 5 June 2022 7 Scheduling Online Meetings 8 draft-nottingham-scheduling-online-meetings-00 10 Abstract 12 This document recommends best practices when scheduling online 13 meetings. 15 About This Document 17 This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. 19 Status information for this document may be found at 20 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-scheduling-online- 21 meetings/. 23 information can be found at https://mnot.github.io/I-D/. 25 Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at 26 https://github.com/mnot/I-D/labels/scheduling-online-meetings. 28 Status of This Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 June 2022. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 52 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 53 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 54 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 55 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as 56 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 57 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. Considerations When Scheduling Online Meetings . . . . . . . 3 63 2.1. Reasons for Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2.2. Meeting Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2.3. Scheduling Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 3. Recommendations for Scheduling Online Meetings . . . . . . . 4 67 3.1. Gather Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 3.2. Find the Best Solution (if possible) . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 3.3. Find an Equitable Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 3.3.1. Poll from the Least Privileged Perspective . . . . . 6 71 3.3.2. Equalize the Pain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 3.3.3. Rotate the Pain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 3.4. Regularly Confirm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 4. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 1. Introduction 79 The Internet has made it possible for many people to meet 80 synchronously online, no matter where they are, so long as they have 81 suitable connectivity. Online meetings thus enable collaboration 82 without travel, empowering those who cannot attend an in-person 83 meeting, either because they do not have the means, or because 84 external circumstances (like a global pandemic) prevents it. 86 However, the ease with which a meeting can be scheduled belies the 87 difficulties that can be encountered when attempting to include a 88 broad selection of people with different commitments, timezones, and 89 expectations. Successfully scheduling an online meeting often 90 requires a delicate balance between accommodating a large set of 91 constraints with the need to make progress. 93 This document recommends best practices when scheduling online 94 meetings. It does not address the many other issues encountered in 95 planning online and hybrid meetings. 97 2. Considerations When Scheduling Online Meetings 99 When scheduling an online meeting, an organizer must consider a 100 number of different factors that can constrain their choices and 101 influence the outcome. 103 2.1. Reasons for Meeting 105 There are many reasons to hold an online meeting, and often the type 106 of meeting has an impact on scheduling considerations. 108 For example, a meeting might be scheduled to make a specific 109 decision, and thus it's important that all stakeholders have equal 110 opportunity to participate in the discussion leading to it. Another 111 meeting (even of the same group) might be held to gather feedback or 112 update participants about the status of an effort, in which case 113 scheduling conflicts might be resolved by a combination of holding 114 multiple meetings and coordinated communication about the outcomes of 115 each. 117 Successful meeting scheduling will consider the nature of the 118 meeting. In particular, if the reasons for meeting do not require 119 everyone to attend and there are potential conflicts, multiple 120 meetings and/or alternative means of achieving the meeting's goals 121 should be considered. 123 2.2. Meeting Participants 125 Participants often have different motivations for attending a 126 meeting. Often, people attend a meeting to witness what occurs 127 without contributing, because they want to track the discussion and 128 any outcomes. Others may attend and only contribute if a proposal 129 that they object to is made. It is often only a fraction of the 130 participants who will make substantial contributions to the 131 discussion. 133 Scheduling is also influenced by the number of people who want to 134 participate. Finding a time that is acceptable to five or six 135 participants is noticeably easier than doing so for fifty or sixty, 136 both because of the larger number of permutations in the latter case, 137 and because a small number of participants is more likely to develop 138 a working ethic that allows cooperation. 140 Another factor to consider is whether the set of potential 141 participants is known during scheduling. If a meeting purports to be 142 'open' -- that is, to allow broad participation from anyone -- 143 participation from those not represented in scheduling discussions 144 needs to be considered, so that they are not systematically 145 disadvantaged. 147 Successful meeting scheduling will assure that those who are 148 reasonably considered to be necessary to the proceedings are able to 149 avoid conflicts. For example, those facilitating the meeting and 150 those presenting critical information are reasonably considered to be 151 necessary to a meeting. Likewise, presence of key stakeholders are 152 only slightly less necessary to a meeting's success. 154 However, those necessary parties should not have any elevated 155 privilege in terms of having their preferences accommodated. If a 156 meeting time is merely inconvenient to them, rather than a serious 157 conflict (see Section 2.3), that should not overcome others' need to 158 avoid serious conflicts. 160 2.3. Scheduling Conflicts 162 Finally, there are different kinds of scheduling conflicts. One 163 person might consider having to commute to an office or shift another 164 meeting or meal as inconvenient, whereas another might have a 165 commitment to collect a child from school or provide care to a family 166 member that is difficult (if not impossible) to change. Likewise, 167 there is a significant difference between the mild annoyance of 168 joining a meeting outside of business hours and disrupting someone's 169 circadian rhythm -- potentially affecting more than one day of their 170 life as they readjust -- to join one at 3am. 172 Successful meeting scheduling will take the nature of conflicts into 173 account, heavily discounting participants' mere inconvenience and 174 prioritising those whose commitments or location make their need to 175 avoid conflicts greater and more legitimate. 177 In general, a one-time conflict is not a reason to change the time of 178 a regular meeting or a series of meetings. 180 3. Recommendations for Scheduling Online Meetings 182 Most online meetings have the potential for scheduling conflicts. 183 The steps below help implement the guidelines above, and are intended 184 to help schedule both single and recurring meetings. 186 3.1. Gather Information 188 Ask group participants for: 190 1. The timezone that they are usually participating from. 192 2. If they have any genuine conflicts. For example, "I need to 193 collect my children from school at 4pm and no one else can do 194 it". 196 3. If they have preferences. For example, getting up early, staying 197 up late, avoiding family mealtimes. 199 "I have another meeting at 4pm on Tuesdays" is not a conflict, it is 200 a preference. This explicitly assumes that those who participate in 201 the meeting for work purposes should prioritise it; otherwise, 202 successfully scheduling the meeting is much less likely. 204 Conflicts and preferences should be gathered privately; e.g., in an 205 e-mail to the convener. 207 3.2. Find the Best Solution (if possible) 209 Based upon the information gathered, identify one or more candidate 210 times for the meeting that conform to these rules: 212 1. No participant is expected to attend any part of the meeting 213 between 11pm and 8am in their stated timezone, unless they 214 explicitly state a preference for doing so, and 216 2. No participant has a genuine conflict in any part of the 217 candidate time. 219 If no candidate times are available, proceed to one of the options in 220 the next step. 222 Otherwise, choose a candidate while conforming as much as possible to 223 any participants' stated preferences, announcing it to the list for 224 confirmation. 226 3.3. Find an Equitable Solution 228 If it isn't possible to find a time that meets all of the relevant 229 constraints, a compromise solution needs to be come to. In doing so, 230 the considerations above can be incorporated by using one of the 231 following methods. 233 3.3.1. Poll from the Least Privileged Perspective 235 A poll can be used to select a time for the meeting. In doing so, it 236 is important to consider the dynamics of group behaviour, because a 237 large number of people who have similar needs are likely to overwhelm 238 the needs of a minority in a disproportionate fashion. 240 For example, if ten participants are all in the US/Pacific timezone, 241 three are in UK/London, and one is in Japan/Tokyo, a poll that has 242 many US-friendly options is likely to result in the meeting taking 243 place during business hours in the US, in the evening in London, and 244 at an extremely unfriendly hour in Tokyo, because the US participants 245 will not take others' inconvenience fully into account. 247 To counteract this tendency, such polls should only include options 248 that accommodate the needs of the least-represented participant. In 249 our example above, that might include options early in the morning 250 for the US, late in the evening for Tokyo, and in the afternoon for 251 London. 253 This option works best when participants are in somewhat compatible 254 timezones; if it is not possible to prevent a participant from being 255 inconvenienced by a truly unreasonable meeting time, the following 256 options may be more appropriate. 258 3.3.2. Equalize the Pain 260 Alternatively, the information gathered can be used to calculate the 261 'least painful' time to hold the meeting, by assigning a 'pain value' 262 to each hour of the day. For example, a meeting during local 263 business hours has 0 pain, whereas a meeting at 3am has a very high 264 value (e.g., 5000). By calculating the cumulative pain for attendees 265 in each possible time slot, the time with the least collective pain 266 can be found. 268 See the online tool (https://bit.ly/meeting-pain-calculator) that 269 facilitates this. Note that it counts each timezone only once, no 270 matter how many participants are in that timezone, to counteract the 271 unfair weight that a large number of participants in one area can 272 have. 274 This option works best for meetings that are one-off, or in a short 275 series, and at least one participant will be truly inconvenienced by 276 an unreasonable time. If it is an ongoing series of meetings, it 277 might be combined with the next option. 279 3.3.3. Rotate the Pain 281 When avoiding conflicts is impossible -- for example, because a truly 282 global pool of participants is needed -- it is more appropriate to 283 rotate through different meeting times that distribute the pain, so 284 that at least some meetings will be convenient for all participants, 285 and any inconvenience is shared. 287 For example, if a series of three successive meetings needed to 288 include participants from many parts of the world, the first might be 289 scheduled during business hours in North and South America, the 290 second during those hours in Europe and Africa, and the third during 291 business hours in Asia and Oceania. 293 Note that the relative number of participants from each region does 294 not affect the distribution of meetings. This is because the 295 resulting pain is not a shared experience -- it is an individual one, 296 and should not be proportional to participant distribution. 297 Furthermore, if a meeting needs to be perceived as globally 298 representative, it is important that the opportunity to participate 299 is equal. 301 The downside of this approach is that the meeting time changes, 302 potentially causing confusion and more disruption. As a result, it 303 should only be used for meetings that have significant amounts of 304 time between them (such as a month or more). 306 3.4. Regularly Confirm 308 If a meeting is regularly scheduled or part of an ongoing series, it 309 is important to regularly confirm the information of participants and 310 the selected time, because new participants may join (or wish to), 311 their information might change, and daylight savings time might 312 change the best choice (especially when participants come from the 313 Southern hemisphere). 315 4. Normative References 317 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 318 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 319 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 320 . 322 Author's Address 323 Mark Nottingham 324 Prahran 325 Australia 327 Email: mnot@mnot.net 328 URI: https://www.mnot.net/