Classification of Calendar Visibility Control
A calendar has been shared. Not all events are visible. This was deliberate and now requires management.
Preliminary Findings: Calendar Visibility Control Interim Report, July 2022
Background
In January 2022, the subject shared their work calendar with three colleagues to facilitate scheduling. The share settings allow colleagues to see event titles and times, but not event details or invitee lists. This was the recommended setting. This was considered sufficient.
The share settings have since produced several conditions requiring assessment.
Finding 1: The Buffer Block Problem
The subject maintains blocks of time titled "Focus Block" on the calendar to prevent back-to-back meetings. The blocks appear to colleagues as legitimate commitments. They are legitimate commitments to the subject and unverifiable to colleagues.
Three colleagues have attempted to schedule meetings during Focus Blocks. The subject has declined. The declines are accurate. The declines cannot be explained without disclosing that the block is self-imposed.
Finding 2: The Buffer Block Inquiry
The buffer block strategy has introduced a secondary problem: the buffer blocks are now a subject of inquiry. One colleague asked what the subject was working on during Tuesday Focus Blocks. The subject described a project. The project is real. The project does not require four hours on Tuesday.
The answer was accurate. The accuracy required active management of the level of detail provided.
Finding 3: The Personal Event Gap
Certain personal events are visible as "Personal" with no additional information. This setting was chosen to indicate that time is unavailable without disclosing content. The setting achieves this.
Colleagues have expressed calibrated concern about the frequency of personal events. The personal events are medical appointments, school pickups, and one recurring Wednesday afternoon that is protected for no formal reason beyond the subject's determination that Wednesday afternoons should be protected.
The concern has not been expressed directly. It is legible in the scheduling attempts.
Finding 4: The Transparency Paradox
The calendar is simultaneously too transparent and not transparent enough, depending on which event is under review at any given moment. High-visibility public meetings provide full scheduling context. Low-visibility personal and buffer events provide context that generates questions.
A less transparent setting would prevent questions and reduce the calendar's utility. A more transparent setting would prevent questions and create different ones.
Preliminary Recommendation
The current settings remain appropriate. The problems generated by the settings are preferable to the problems generated by alternative settings. This is not a strong recommendation. It is an accurate one.
Status
Investigation ongoing. Wednesday afternoons remain protected. No formal justification has been filed.