Re: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++802 Plenary network expenditures
Geoff,
Unless I misunderstand RRoO, a motion that is divided must be divided
into two or more motions, each such motion containing one or more of the
proposals in the original motion. As I read my motion, the component
proposals are
1) That the budget for the network at a LMSC Plenary session be
increased from $25k to $30k.
2) That the actual expenditure for the network at a LMSC Plenary
session shall not be greater $33k.
3) 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.
As I read your motion, it does not clearly correspond to a regrouping of
these three items. So I think you need to clarify your motion or
perhaps change it to a motion to amend.
I would also like to offer the following thoughts.
First, the incremental cost of 4xT1 over 1xT1 is roughly $2.5k ($7.5k vs
$5k). Under some relatively simple assumptions about plenary session attendees,
average salary of $100k with 50% overhead,
$500 average transportation expense to attend a session,
1 day of travel,
4 days of attendance,
$50/day for food,
average hotel room price of $150/night and
$300 registration fee,
the cost for an individual to attend a session is AT LEAST $4400. With
plenary session attendance at over 1000, the incremental cost of 4xT1
roughly $2.50 per attendee. Spending an additional $2.50 to give each
attendee an opportunity to be more effective seems quite reasonable.
And yes, some will use the greater access to the net to waste time. But
folks have been wasting time in meetings with solitaire and other
diversions for years.
Second, the administrative problems of deciding, defending, continuously
adjusting who gets access to the wed and which web sites are accessible
will be a nightmare and, in my opinion, will not be worth the $2500 that
we might save with just a T1 line.
Thanks,
wlq
Geoff Thompson wrote:
>
> 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