I think I have fixed the issue with the schedule Confirm button. Baptiste, you should be able to change the schedule on the Schedule tab.

And I am also interested what people think of posting on the schedule that the hearing will be held "30 minutes after PTL". Or "Following Previous Hearing". These were added because they are being used, but am wondering what other judges think of that approach.

Good feature.
In an effort to keep PC meetings on schedule, I have started to add the following to SI:
"All parties must check in at the Judges' table 10 minutes prior to their scheduled hearing time. Any Protest Meeting that does not have all parties present at the beginning of the meeting will be moved to the end of the line". Other Judges besides me are frustrated trying to keep meetings on schedule when we are missing parties to the protest.
Thoughts?

Indeed it works, thank you Paul!

I think Following previous hearings is broadly used so yes, that's a definitive requirement. However, 30/60 minutes after PTL depends on the time we said for posting notices, and n a multi-classes event, I think it might take a bit too much thoughts in the scheduling to be efficient. For all parties and other involved or interested in the event, I think that it is clearer to display the time of the hearing instead of setting time according to another time.

As for your system David, it's quite nice in my opinion ahah. But then, we'd have to think about the fairness of the hearing. You may hear the protest under RRS 63.3(b) if a party is not present. If you don't, and one of the parties was on time, even if you do it for every protest, you advantage boats not checking the ONB, or sloppy in their organization, and you make people who were on time wait longer than they should have. Therefore, I would not do it.
Furthermore, your SI uses "Protest Meeting"?? Do you mean protest hearing?

As many of you have heard me preach, we need to move beyond a static notice board. Paper on a central notice board is about as inefficient a system as I can imagine and it certainly dates most of the chief judges who still do it (you know who you are). It's no wonder younger competitors don't understand it as it may be the only activity in their life where they have to physically go to a designated spot and read an official notice handwritten on a piece of paper. If you're trying to promote an event as hip, that really is a buzz kill. People rely on electronic devices for communications; the protest committee needs to be dragged into at least the 20th century and start using them.

My experience has been that when a PC incorporates electronic messaging into their workflow, they don't have to go looking for, nor wait on competitors for protest hearings. The competitors are more anxious to get the hearing completed than PC is to get it done. If you communicate the schedule on a real time basis, they will show up and be ready when you open the door. If they don't happen to be there, or the wrong person is there, a quick text message to their phone works wonders. I've found that the hearings end much earlier in the evening when electronic messaging is used, and that is good for everyone. And that is enough motivation for the competitors. They don't need to be penalized for showing up late because the protest committee is still figuring out how to use a flip phone.

I see a lot of reservation by the users of the Jury Management Tools on RRS.org in populating the Competitors list. If you get the registration list and import it, and that list includes their email and telephone number, competitors will be notified when a protest is filed against them and when the hearing is scheduled. You will then not have to chase them or wait for them. They know they've been protested and can see the progression of the hearings on the electronic hearing schedule (if you update the status of each protest as you hear them). And I understand the resistance to it. We've grown accustomed to the paper process. But I find that now I have a hard time going back to using just paper - you can get used to a new process pretty quickly, especially when it makes your job so much easier.

And just so you know, the competitors list in RRS.org is used for nothing other than your event and is not available to anyone other than the officials assigned to the event. (Well, I'll admit I can see it, but I make a point not to go there unless I'm an official at the event or you ask me to help). There have been concerns that the competitor list is being sold or shared outside the officials of the event. Rest assured, it is secure (meets the GDPR and COPPA requirements) and is not shared with anyone for any reason other than the officials for the event. Thus, if the OA has authority to use the data for registration, the protest committee has authority to use it for hearings. And honestly, how often do you leave a printed competitor list on the protest desk for anyone to see (and the vendors to copy). By the way, don't do that - especially at youth events. But we inadvertantly share the data in a much more insidious manner than using the data in our electronic scoring and management systems.