Buzz and Roger,
More for the sake of debate than because I
support a specific position, I will put forth the premise that as we grow larger
we should in fact act more like a convention, and less like a small committee of
engineers. At what point do the financial responsibilities become too
much to reasonably expect companies to host an 802 session? Is it 1500
participants, 2000, or 10,000? I don’t know the answer, but I think
we have already crossed the line in the US where finding hosts and convenient
venues is easy. Perhaps I’m nuts, but I’m starting to favor
using actual convention facilities and inconveniencing all 802 participant
equally, rather than have different groups within 802 inconvenienced (perhaps
disproportionately over time). This would greatly simplify the hotel
issues I believe at the price of longer commutes to our actual meeting
locations. I did not enjoy walking to the convention center in San Antonio, but it
certainly was not the end of the world.
There seems to be some sort of premise that
domestic meeting have less problems than international meetings. I can’t
remember a meeting in recent times that I would say ran “smoothly”.
Think of the planning leading up to the San Antonio meeting? Anyone want to
Visit the Dallas Airport Hyatt again? Given our size and fact that we are
mostly all volunteers, I think we do a pretty good job. But I hardly
think things are smooth here in the US. I don’t have any
international examples to compare to, but based on the couple of international interims
I’ve attended, I don’t see that they were substantially more
difficult to execute than domestic interims. I agree that they will
generally be more expensive (at least for US participants).
Personally, I favor setting up a circuit
of places that have geographic diversity, and that we know from experience to
have good facilities. I don’t mind going back to the same place say
every 3 years. But some of those places I feel should be in Europe, and
some in Asia. We have substantial constituencies
from these areas, and we should hold meetings there. As far as a host
company, I think requiring a host is unreasonable due to financial liabilities
etc. I don’t mind accepting a Host’s invitation to assist in
the process of meeting planning as long as there is no perception of bias (it’s
a lot easier to stack a meeting in your home country!). If we do open
things up for hosts internationally, I think we should do so domestically as
well. I see no reason to allow one and not the other. I’d be
more receptive to formal government invites and assistance than to invites from
companies. I do think we are a conventioneers, and not just engineers.
We should act as such. I think that we want to select venues that are
convenient and cost effective for our attendees (or should I say as equally inconvenient
and costly are reasonable for everyone involved).
Anyway, I may change my mind on everything
written above, but they are my thoughts at the moment.
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
From:
owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Rigsbee, Everett O
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004
10:17 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email
Ballot+++ENDS 13 JAN+++motion to hold plenary sessions outside NA
Paul, I will vote NO on this motion
unless the following amendment is made to the motion:
"Beginning in calendar year 2008 IEEE
802 will hold at least one full 802 Session (Plenary or Interim) outside of
North America for those years in which a local host company or government
agency agrees in writing to sponsor the IEEE 802 session and provide logistical
support for obtaining acceptable hotel and service contract arrangements and
coordinating with local vendors as required. Financial support for the
Session would also be welcomed but is not required if contracted arrangements
can be accomplished without violation of IEEE 802 fiscal responsibility
guidelines."
Without the committment of a serious local
sponsor, I think we are committing to do something that may damage both our
reputation for effectiveness and our world-wide credibility. As Geoff
pointed out, being an international organization has very little to do with
where you hold the session, but what you do to facilitate participation by all
who care to do so. If we make serious efforts to welcome and support
participation from our non-US participants, we will continue to be viewed as a
truly international organization for years to come. And if we also can
hold some session in non-North American locations that will help too. But
it is not a litmus-test for internationality. If we can get sponsors, we
can do international venues. If they don't care enough to volunteer, then
we should not have to suffer the consequences.
Let's encourage partnering with our non-US
colleagues to make IEEE 802 a truly successful international SDO.
Thanx, Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
Cell: (425) 417-1022
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich
[mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004
1:02 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS
13 JAN+++motion to hold plenary sessions outside NA
Dear EC members,
This is a email ballot to make a determination on the below motion.
Motion:
"I move that beginning calendar year 2008, at least one 802
plenary session shall be held outside of North America
in each calendar year."
Moved: Bob O'Hara
Second: Jerry Upton
The ballot opens 6pm ET Tuesay 28 December 2004 and
closes Thursday 13 January 2005.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.