In a conversation about the way of the asteroid, akrowne described a "pull-based model for coordination" and contrasted it with a "push-based model".
To sum up:
I would like to note that listing your schedule, interests, availability, etc., doesn't imply working with a push-based model.
The main reason for sharing relevant portions of your schedule (task lists, etc.) in a pull-based model, is that when you're collaborating with (or working for) other people, these people will typically want to know when they can expect the results of your work.
Sometimes a set of tasks will have a sufficient degree of orthogonality to make them irrelevant to each other. But other sets of tasks depend on each other in complex, time-sensitive ways. In this latter situation, just saying "I think I'll adopt task A" without (a) stating this publicly, (b) giving some estimate on time-to-completion… could have unpleasant results. Certainly for grants, up-front time and money estimates are key.
Whatever model is used, whether participants say "these are your tasks" or "could you consider doing these tasks?" or "I'm going to do these tasks!", relevant details about scheduling, available skills, available time, etc., seem likely to be helpful or even necessary for a group of people to work together to get things done. --jcorneli Sat May 14 20:30:12 2005 UTC