idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits55708/draft-nottingham-scheduling-online-meetings-01.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 document date (20 January 2022) is 114 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 319, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 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 20 January 2022 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice 5 Expires: 24 July 2022 7 Scheduling Online Meetings 8 draft-nottingham-scheduling-online-meetings-01 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 24 July 2022. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2022 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. Method I: Poll from the Least Privileged 71 Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 3.3.2. Method II: Equalize the Pain . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 3.3.3. Method III: Rotate the Pain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 3.4. Regularly Confirm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 4. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 78 1. Introduction 80 The Internet has made it possible for people to meet synchronously 81 online, no matter where they are (so long as they have suitable 82 connectivity). Online meetings thus enable collaboration without 83 travel, empowering those who cannot attend an in-person meeting, 84 either because they do not have the means, or because external 85 circumstances (like a global pandemic) prevents it. 87 However, the ease with which an online meeting can be scheduled 88 belies the difficulties that can be encountered when attempting to 89 include a broad selection of people with different commitments, 90 timezones, and expectations. Successfully scheduling an online 91 meeting often requires a delicate balance between accommodating a 92 large set of constraints with the need to make progress. 94 This document recommends best practices when scheduling online 95 meetings. It does not address the many other issues encountered in 96 planning online and hybrid meetings. 98 2. Considerations When Scheduling Online Meetings 100 When scheduling an online meeting, an organizer must consider a 101 number of different factors that can constrain their choices and 102 influence the outcome. 104 2.1. Reasons for Meeting 106 There are many reasons to hold an online meeting, and often the type 107 of meeting has an impact on scheduling. 109 For example, a meeting might be scheduled to make a specific 110 decision, and thus it's important that all stakeholders have equal 111 opportunity to participate in the discussion leading to it. Another 112 meeting (even of the same group) might be held to gather feedback or 113 update participants about the status of an effort, in which case 114 scheduling conflicts might be resolved by a combination of holding 115 multiple meetings and coordinated communication about the outcomes of 116 each. 118 Successful meeting scheduling will consider the nature of the 119 meeting. In particular, if the reasons for meeting do not require 120 everyone to attend and there are potential conflicts, multiple 121 meetings and/or alternative means of achieving the meeting's goals 122 should be considered. 124 2.2. Meeting Participants 126 Participants often have different motivations for attending a 127 meeting. Often, people attend a meeting to witness what occurs 128 without contributing, because they want to track the discussion and 129 any outcomes. Others may attend and only contribute if a proposal 130 that they object to is made. It is often only a fraction of the 131 participants who will make substantial contributions to the 132 discussion. 134 Scheduling is also influenced by the number of people who want to 135 participate. Finding a time that is acceptable to five or six 136 participants is noticeably easier than doing so for fifty or sixty, 137 both because of the larger number of permutations in the latter case, 138 and because a small number of participants is more likely to develop 139 a working ethic that allows cooperation. 141 Another factor to consider is whether the set of potential 142 participants is known during scheduling. If a meeting purports to be 143 'open' -- that is, to allow broad participation from anyone -- 144 participation from those not represented in scheduling discussions 145 needs to be considered, so that they are not systematically 146 disadvantaged. 148 Successful meeting scheduling will assure that those who are 149 reasonably considered to be necessary to the proceedings are able to 150 avoid conflicts. For example, those facilitating the meeting and 151 those presenting critical information are reasonably considered to be 152 necessary to a meeting. Likewise, presence of key stakeholders are 153 only slightly less necessary to a meeting's success. 155 However, those necessary parties should not have any elevated 156 privilege in terms of having their preferences accommodated. If a 157 meeting time is merely inconvenient to them, rather than a serious 158 conflict (see Section 2.3), that should not overcome others' need to 159 avoid serious conflicts. 161 2.3. Scheduling Conflicts 163 Finally, there are different kinds of scheduling conflicts. One 164 person might consider having to commute to an office or shift another 165 meeting or meal as inconvenient, whereas another might have a 166 commitment to collect a child from school or provide care to a family 167 member that is difficult (if not impossible) to change. 169 Likewise, there is a significant difference between the mild 170 annoyance of joining a meeting outside of business hours (for 171 example, at 6pm local time) and disrupting someone's circadian rhythm 172 -- potentially affecting more than one day of their life as they 173 readjust -- to join one at 3am. 175 Successful meeting scheduling will take the nature of conflicts into 176 account, heavily discounting participants' mere inconvenience and 177 prioritising those whose commitments or location make their need to 178 avoid conflicts greater and more legitimate. 180 In general, a one-time conflict is not a reason to change the time of 181 a regular meeting or a series of meetings. 183 3. Recommendations for Scheduling Online Meetings 185 Most online meetings have the potential for scheduling conflicts. 186 The steps below help implement the guidelines above, and are intended 187 to help schedule both single and recurring meetings. 189 3.1. Gather Information 191 Ask group participants for: 193 1. The timezone that they are usually participating from. 195 2. If they have any genuine conflicts. For example, "I need to 196 collect my children from school at 4pm and no one else can do 197 it". 199 3. If they have preferences. For example, getting up early, staying 200 up late, avoiding family mealtimes. 202 "I have another meeting at 4pm on Tuesdays" is not a conflict, it is 203 a preference. This explicitly assumes that those who participate in 204 the meeting for work purposes should prioritise it; otherwise, 205 successfully scheduling the meeting is much less likely. 207 Conflicts and preferences should be gathered privately; e.g., in an 208 e-mail to the convener. 210 3.2. Find the Best Solution (if possible) 212 Based upon the information gathered, identify one or more candidate 213 times for the meeting that conform to these rules: 215 1. No participant is expected to attend any part of the meeting 216 between 11pm and 8am in their stated timezone, unless they 217 explicitly state a preference for doing so, and 219 2. No participant has a genuine conflict in any part of the 220 candidate time. 222 If no candidate times are available, proceed to one of the options in 223 the next step. 225 Otherwise, choose a candidate while conforming as much as possible to 226 any participants' stated preferences, announcing it for confirmation. 228 3.3. Find an Equitable Solution 230 If it isn't possible to find a time that meets all of the relevant 231 constraints, a compromise needs to be found. In doing so, the 232 considerations above can be incorporated by using one of the 233 following methods. 235 3.3.1. Method I: Poll from the Least Privileged Perspective 237 A poll can be used to select a time for the meeting. In doing so, it 238 is important to consider the dynamics of group behaviour, because a 239 large number of people who have similar preferences are likely to 240 overwhelm the needs of a minority. 242 For example, if ten participants are all in the US/Pacific timezone, 243 three are in UK/London, and one is in Japan/Tokyo, a poll that has 244 many US-friendly options is likely to result in the meeting taking 245 place during business hours in the US, in the evening in London, and 246 at an extremely unfriendly hour in Tokyo, because the US participants 247 will not take others' inconvenience fully into account. 249 To counteract this tendency, such polls should only include options 250 that accommodate the needs of the least-represented participant. In 251 our example above, that might include options early in the morning 252 for the US, late in the evening for Tokyo, and in the afternoon for 253 London. 255 This option works best when participants are in somewhat compatible 256 timezones; if it is not possible to prevent a participant from being 257 inconvenienced by a truly unreasonable meeting time, the following 258 methods may be more appropriate. 260 3.3.2. Method II: Equalize the Pain 262 Alternatively, the information gathered can be used to calculate the 263 'least painful' time to hold the meeting, by assigning a 'pain value' 264 to each hour of the day. For example, a meeting during local 265 business hours has 0 pain, whereas a meeting at 3am has a very high 266 value (e.g., 5000). By calculating the cumulative pain for attendees 267 in each possible time slot, the time with the least collective pain 268 can be found. 270 See the online tool (https://bit.ly/meeting-pain-calculator) that 271 facilitates this. Note that it counts each timezone only once, no 272 matter how many participants are in that timezone, to counteract the 273 unfair weight that a large number of participants in one area can 274 have. 276 This option works best for meetings that are one-off, or in a short 277 series, and at least one participant will be truly inconvenienced by 278 an unreasonable time. If it is an ongoing series of meetings, it 279 might be combined with the next option. 281 3.3.3. Method III: Rotate the Pain 283 When avoiding conflicts is impossible -- for example, because a truly 284 global pool of participants is needed -- it is more appropriate to 285 rotate through different meeting times that distribute the pain, so 286 that at least some meetings will be convenient for all participants, 287 and any inconvenience is shared. 289 For example, if a series of three successive meetings needed to 290 include participants from many parts of the world, the first might be 291 scheduled during business hours in North and South America, the 292 second during those hours in Europe and Africa, and the third during 293 business hours in Asia and Oceania. 295 Note that the relative number of participants from each region does 296 not affect the distribution of meetings. This is because the 297 resulting pain is not a shared experience -- it is an individual one, 298 and should not be proportional to participant distribution. 299 Furthermore, if a meeting needs to be perceived as globally 300 representative, it is important that the opportunity to participate 301 is equal. 303 The downside of this approach is that the meeting time changes, 304 potentially causing confusion and more disruption. As a result, it 305 should only be used for meetings that have significant amounts of 306 time between them (such as a month or more). 308 3.4. Regularly Confirm 310 If a meeting is regularly scheduled or part of an ongoing series, it 311 is important to regularly confirm the information of participants and 312 the selected time, because new participants may join (or wish to), 313 their information might change, and daylight savings time might 314 change the best choice (especially when participants come from the 315 Southern hemisphere). 317 4. Normative References 319 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 320 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 321 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 322 . 324 Author's Address 325 Mark Nottingham 326 Prahran 327 Australia 329 Email: mnot@mnot.net 330 URI: https://www.mnot.net/