RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++802 Plenary network expenditures
Geoff,
Parlimentary
proceedure wise, that is not a valid move to divide the question.
Division applies to motions where one can separate parts of a motion
without rewriting. The following would hold if it isn't too late to
divide the question. Since the voting has already been started, it probably is
too late.
The motion
was:
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.
One could presumably
divide that into two parts:
A) 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
B) 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.
Your suggested
division,
A) Support
for expanded bandwidth to the outside
net.
B)
Support for professional network support on an ongoing basis.
doesn't divide the existing motion into two parts. Some part
of the raise in the expenditure limit may be for the professional help. To do
what you want, you would have to amend the motion rather than
divide.
Personally, I have
often found times when the ability to browse to the external web was helpful to
my participation in the meeting. For instance questions come up that one can
answer if one can get to another organization's web site. I get asked for
information that I email to the requester or some of us are working on a file
and mail it around. Also, I distrust the on site servers. Often they aren't
set up all the time or the complete data base from the 802 site didn't get
copied to it; just the more current stuff. This makes it difficult to rely on
them and I prefer to have the IEEE 802 site available for
access.
If it makes you feel
better, sharing a T1 with 1000 people is a great come down from the 10
Mbs I have at home (even when I have to share the home bandwidth with my
bit hog son).
Regards,
Pat
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