Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++802 Plenary network expenditures
Colleagues-
DISAPPROVE
I realize that this will likely put me in the grumpy (and probably
lonely) minority.
I do not think that it is within our mission/charter to provide each
attendee with as good or better connectivity while they are in an 802
meeting as they get when they are at work. When they all get Dot11 VoIP
telephones will it be our job to jump the available bandwidth to
meet that demand?
My counter proposal is to limit our expenditure to a single T-1 line and
limit the access to the outside world. The limiting of access to the
outside world should be kept to something that is administratively easy.
For that I would consider the following acceptable:
- The following would have access to the outside via the T-1
line:
- 1) Those connected to the LAN by wire in the meeting office. (i.e.
presumably 802 business)
- 2) Those connected via a single 802.11 Access Point that is in the
office (also presumably 802 business but not bulletproof)
- 3) Those connected to the LAN by wire in the Internet Cafe Facility
that we are used to providing. (open to all comers).
- In meeting room connectivity would be limited to access to such local
facilities as our at-meeting servers, in-meeting peer networking, etc.
I believe that this will provide more than reasonable connectivity
for an employee who is "on the road". I believe it will keep
our costs contained whereas the proposal to keep up with demand will give
us cost curve that will rise uncontrollably and load costs on our
operation that have increasingly little to do with our business at
hand.
In particular, I object to the logical extension of the work methodology
proposed by Mat, i.e.:
- "...the convenience of being able to do e-mail and web scanning
during meetings."
Which would be: "Oh, I can get a whole week's work done and
satisfy the requirement to plant my body in the room >75% of the
time..."
It has been often said that it is a bad idea to have sessions that are
close to the home base of a significant number of our members. They gripe
that if they are commuting to the meeting instead of traveling to a (more
or less) distant location then they are expected to do all of their
regular work and "standards" too. This would only make that
worse.
I am willing to spend money to make it more effective to conduct the
business of the meetings. (More LCDs, facilities to support access to
meeting material, both real-time and archival)
I am not willing to spend money so that we can inflate the statistics for
meeting (session?) attendance and do something else.
I do think we have gotten to the point where real ongoing network support
should be considered.
I move to divide the question.
A) Support
for expanded bandwidth to the outside net.
B) Support
for professional network support on an ongoing basis.
Geoff
At 03:13 PM 6/6/2003 -0400, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Dear SEC members,
This is a 15 day SEC email ballot to make a determination by SEC motion
to
authorize an increase in the amount budgeted for network services.
See the
specific motion wording below.
Moved by Bill Quackenbush
Seconded by Carl Stevenson
The email ballot opens on Friday June 6th 4PM ET and closes Saturday
June
21st, 2003 4PM ET.
Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector with a CC directly to
me
(p.nikolich@ieee.org).
Regards,
- Paul Nikolich
MOTION
That the budget for the network at a LMSC Plenary session be
increased
from $25k to $30k with a maximum expenditure of $33k/session and
that the
LMSC is authorized to enter into a multi-session contract contract
for the
configuration, operation and management of said network
subject to the
above budget and expenditure limits.
MOVED: Bill Qauckenbush
SECOND: Carl Stevenson
RATIONALE (per BillQ's original email):
All,
Given the 30% increase in Plenary session attendance from 11/02 to 3/03
and
even greater projected attendance at the 7/03 and 11/03 Plenary
sessions,
the $25k/Pleanry session budget networking does not appear to be
enough.
Given the load and dependence a number of the WGs are placing on the
Plenary
session network, I believe that we need more bandwidth to the outside
world
and we need full-time professional network management.
We had a single T1 to the outside world at DFW which was clearly not
enough
and for which we likely set a world record for sustained load. We
are
working on 4xT1 for SF with a cost of something like $8k.
We are also talking with I.D.E.A.L. Technologies about a contract
to
configure, operate and manage the network on a full-time basis.
To that end I make the following motion.
That the budget for the network at a LMSC Plenary session be
increased from
$25k to $30k with a maximum expenditure of $33k/session and that the LMSC
is
authorized to enter into a multi-session contract contract for the
configuration, operation and management of said network subject to
the
above budget and expenditure limits.
Thanks,
wlq