Delete without sending a cancellation? Why?
in [Calendar]
|
From: LMCsquared on 7 Sep 2006 09:49 Me personally: no. It's annoying enough as it is that meetings randomly appear in my calendar that I am not expected to attend, but have created as a delegate from the CEO's calendar (some appear in my calendar, some don't, no rhyme or reason to it). The meetings are in his calendar, I don't need or want them in mine unless I am part of the meeting - in which case I invite myself from his calendar. If PAs are working for a team of people, then it might be easier to see everyone in a single window, rather than having multiple calendars open - in which case, my preferred option would be to colour code by user and be able to do this as an individual user rule - i.e. user can choose whether to show all meetings that they are attending in red, with other meetings by user/colour as they choose. However anyone else invited to that meeting would see the meeting in their calendar as per their individual setups. Having to do any extra messing around with meetings on a meeting-by-meeting basis is a time-consuming pain in the neck. "Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]" wrote: > Would this scenario work for you in Outlook 2007: Have the PAs create the meetings on their own calendars, rather than on the CEO's calendar. They would certainly still invite the CEO, but would maintain the meeting details on their own calendars, presumably using color coding or a separate view to distinguish those meetings from the PA's own activities. > > -- > Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP > Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003 > http://www.turtleflock.com/olconfig/index.htm > and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for > Administrators, Power Users, and Developers > http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx > > "LMCsquared" <LMCsquared(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1BD8A84A-1DBF-4F15-BDAE-48C36013D251(a)microsoft.com... > > > > > > "Katie G" wrote: > > > >> Can anyone think of a situation you wouldn't want to send a cancelation ? > > > > Yes! > > > > I work for the CEO of our organisation and there are frequent recurring > > management meetings - where I obviously send invitations to other attendees. > > Even if the CEO cannot go, these meetings still go ahead with the other > > attendees. So I might need to delete them from the CEO's calendar (if he has > > other commitments in the calendar then it's just a mess if I leave the > > meeting in there) - but the other people still NEED them in their calendars - > > it's much easier and quicker to say "No, don't send a cancellation" than to > > rebook the meeting and ensure people send responses. > > > > I am disappointed that this option has gone from Outlook 2007. We have not > > yet upgraded (we're still on 2003). In my opinion, it would be useful to give > > us the choice (possibly as a global option on the server) whether to > > force/automatically send cancellations or leave it as it works now (preferred > > option for hardworking PAs everywhere). >
From: elbyc on 27 Sep 2006 19:29
This is well put. I agree with you about both the frustration of working with multiple calendars and your disappointment about this lost feature. One suggestion you might try - you can create a new calendar folder in the main view of Outlook (I use 2003) and choose to have it contain calendar items. Then send invitations from there instead of from your CEO's or your calendar. It says it won't track the incoming messages, but it looks like it actually does. I also schedule meetings through my boss's calendar and when there are multiple recipients she gets pinged with a bunch of responses which she then has to delete. Having a separate calendar may eliminate this issue. LMCsquared wrote: > Me personally: no. > > It's annoying enough as it is that meetings randomly appear in my calendar > that I am not expected to attend, but have created as a delegate from the > CEO's calendar (some appear in my calendar, some don't, no rhyme or reason to > it). The meetings are in his calendar, I don't need or want them in mine > unless I am part of the meeting - in which case I invite myself from his > calendar. > > If PAs are working for a team of people, then it might be easier to see > everyone in a single window, rather than having multiple calendars open - in > which case, my preferred option would be to colour code by user and be able > to do this as an individual user rule - i.e. user can choose whether to show > all meetings that they are attending in red, with other meetings by > user/colour as they choose. However anyone else invited to that meeting would > see the meeting in their calendar as per their individual setups. > > Having to do any extra messing around with meetings on a meeting-by-meeting > basis is a time-consuming pain in the neck. > > "Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]" wrote: > > > Would this scenario work for you in Outlook 2007: Have the PAs create the meetings on their own calendars, rather than on the CEO's calendar. They would certainly still invite the CEO, but would maintain the meeting details on their own calendars, presumably using color coding or a separate view to distinguish those meetings from the PA's own activities. > > > > -- > > Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP > > Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003 > > http://www.turtleflock.com/olconfig/index.htm > > and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for > > Administrators, Power Users, and Developers > > http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx > > > > "LMCsquared" <LMCsquared(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1BD8A84A-1DBF-4F15-BDAE-48C36013D251(a)microsoft.com... > > > > > > > > > "Katie G" wrote: > > > > > >> Can anyone think of a situation you wouldn't want to send a cancelation ? > > > > > > Yes! > > > > > > I work for the CEO of our organisation and there are frequent recurring > > > management meetings - where I obviously send invitations to other attendees. > > > Even if the CEO cannot go, these meetings still go ahead with the other > > > attendees. So I might need to delete them from the CEO's calendar (if he has > > > other commitments in the calendar then it's just a mess if I leave the > > > meeting in there) - but the other people still NEED them in their calendars - > > > it's much easier and quicker to say "No, don't send a cancellation" than to > > > rebook the meeting and ensure people send responses. > > > > > > I am disappointed that this option has gone from Outlook 2007. We have not > > > yet upgraded (we're still on 2003). In my opinion, it would be useful to give > > > us the choice (possibly as a global option on the server) whether to > > > force/automatically send cancellations or leave it as it works now (preferred > > > option for hardworking PAs everywhere). > > |