Event Sign up meter suggestion.

[Ron Schmit]

Hey, All:

If you go to the event manager to sign up to help staff a star party, the "sign-up with" function seems useless. Currently, you select: Promise, Refuse, or any value between 95% and 5%, in increments of 5. I'm not sure what the intention is. Not sure what separates a 55% commitment from a 50%... Can we make these more relevant?

I can imagine a host of other, less ambiguous descriptions - some we may actually be able to use:

Will run a scope
Will run the video rig
Will help with crowd control
Will provide a presentation
Will do anything
Will help but arriving late
Will help but leaving early
Bringing a scope
Can't make it (posted if plans change after an original positive posting)
Might be able to make it
Could sub for someone if needed
Others?

It would help denote in a glance if there are enough people to get the job done and which roles might need shoring up. From the discussions regarding last Saturday's public party, this may be a helpful tool.

Thoughts?

[Reece]

I like this idea. I would also suggest a field for something like, "Will help, but not proficient in X," or maybe, "Will help another staff member." I didn't know how to run the projector last time I showed up (figured it out now, thanks Ron), and I'm still learning the imaging rig. I like to volunteer, but I probably wouldn't do well solo. Of course, someone has always showed up so it hasn't really been a problem.

[FF2Rydia]

I like the description categorization idea, with the "Will help, but not proficient in X" suggestion by Reece (in my case, X would be presentations and constellation tours), with two additional suggestions of "Will provide constellation tours" and "Will run the 20 inch." However, the commitment level is something I think should stay, but might be modified by changing the increment from 5 to 10 (with the possible exception of having 25% and 75% being available). The reason is that, while I'm almost always there and usually know times when I can't at least a week ahead, I have had several instances when my ability to go was uncertain but would firm up (in either direction) as the days progressed. Combined, these two fields give us the ability to say "My probability of being there is N and, if I am there, I will . . . ."

[glendak]

I've not been very active at Onan this past year, but 'back in the day' I found 'I might / might not be there' responses less than helpful.

Being the one responsible for ensuring the events were staffed, it made it quite frustrating. You'd have 5 people saying 'I'll try to be there', 'I hope to be there', etc. -- but no one saying "I'll be there." So you'd never whether there were 'zero' keyholders showing up or 6+. With all the wishy-washiness, I could never tell if I needed to get on the phone to my core group of 'steady Eddie keyholders' to recruit them at the last minute, or if I was only 'crying wolf' and inconveniencing them with an unnecessary last-minute trip.

And it muddied the waters for the keyholders seeing the request -- "Well, are enough people going to be there, or not? Do I need to change my plans and get out there tonight, or is the event covered?"

So, I'd stay away from trying to assign probabilities and likelihoods. I'd suggest have a limited number of "I WILL be there and will do x' categories and only one 'I may be there if' category. That way those responsible for staffing can get a headcount they can depend on being there (barring unforeseen circumstances of course) without muddying the waters with a lot of good intentions.

And if any of the 'I may be there' folks do indeed show up -- bonus!

Mike (not Glenda) Kibat