Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13, 2009Plenary Session for your review
Matt,
I agree with your point about interim data not applying exactly to
plenaries, but I think IETF attendance would be even less relevant to an
IEEE 802 plenary. Their meeting style is very different than ours. Many
of their working groups will meet for 2 or 4 hours during the week so it
can be difficult to justify travel if you are only interested in a
working group or two. Also, attendance isn't necessary to get voting
rights or to having a say in concensus forming. They don't have formal
voting and the call for concensus as well as much of the debate occurs
on the reflectors.
IETF meets three times a year usually with one non-NA meeting per year
alternating between Asia/Pacific Rim and Europe (they didn't have one in
2006 which would have been an Asia year). For what it is worth given the
difference in working style, you can see their past history of meeting
location and attendance at:
http://ietf.org/meetings/past.meetings.html
In a brief scan of their list, the only case where non-NA attendance is
notably low is Austrailia (matching the wireless interim data John Barr
showed). In some cases the non-NA was the peak meeting of the year.
Austrailia probably suffers from being a long trip to very long trip for
almost everyone and not having as much local pick-up to balance that
out.
I also agree with Carl that numbers aren't the whole story. I don't have
comparative numbers for the non-US and US 802.1 and 802.3 interims that
I've been to, but we have had a close to complete turn out of the
primary contributors. My task group has held meetings inconjunction with
802.1 interims in Bejing, York, Geneva (co-located with 802.3) and
Stockkholm. We have had productive sessions in all those locations -
none was a problem for task group efficiency. From what I saw of
interworking and AVB task groups, they had good turnout as well. We
have regular contributors who travel regularly from Asia and Europe for
NA meetings. The room rate for the Stockholm meeting was around $280
including breakfast with registration of $400 (but that included lunch
and the break treats were yummy - a cut above the usual cookie) so it
wasn't too far off of what we are talking about for Rome hotel rates.
Bejing was a problem for some of our security folks and that task group
met a different week in the US instead.
As John points out, fluctuations in workload also have to be factored
in. I suspect that the 802.3 attendance in Seoul this week may be low,
but that is as much due to project phase (EEESG and HSSG have PARs
awaiting approval or forwarding) and time of year (Rosh HaShanah falling
mid-week kept me home).
In any case, what data we have says European and Asian venues can get
productive turn-out.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J.
(US SSA)
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:59 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
2009Plenary Session for your review
Dave,
First, I think it is great to see non-EC members of 802 engage with
these discussions. Often I feel not enough members of 802 get engaged
with these things.
Regarding you comments, my own opinion is that comparative data does not
exist within 802. We've held one '802 interim' in a non-NA venue, and I
don't consider it representative. Probably the closest we can come to
example data for non-NA would be our trips to Hawaii. This location is
generally more expensive, and equally difficult for pretty much everyone
to get to being an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Perhaps
John can pull some data comparing Hawaii with other locations, but even
this probably isn't a fair comparison.
More important to me is our 'Charter'. As an international standards
group I feel we have a duty to bring our group to places outside of NA
as long as this is reasonably feasibly (even if it costs us more money,
or makes attendance more difficult for those who happened to be based in
NA). I'd rather look for an existence proof. To me that proof would
lie with IETF. I don't attend that body, but feel they are highly
representative of our own body. I was under the impression that they
regularly hold meeting at Non-NA locations. I think we should ask
people familiar with that body how things work, and consider it as a
model for how we should work.
For fun, I went to their website and pulled their meeting schedule (see
below). While their non-NA locations are clearly less certain, their
intent is clear. They try and alternate between NA, Europe, and Asia.
I think we should do something similar.
Mat
Future IETF Meeting Sites
Fall 2007 - 70th IETF
December 2-7, 2007
Host: TBD
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
The following meeting dates were adopted to avoid conflicts with other
organizations when known and possible. Unfortunately with more than 30
organizations and only 52 weeks in a year, it was not always possible.
The IETF's policy with regard to clashes can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/clash_list.html
The meetings also identify locations. These locations are target
locations, but they are provisional and dependent upon many variables
including qualified venue availability, financial risk and identifying
an appropriate Host.
Clash List
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/clash_list.html
Spring 2008 - 71st IETF
March 9-14, 2008
Host: Comcast
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Summer 2008 - 72nd IETF
July 27 - August 1, 2008
Host: TBD
Location: Europe (Provisional)
Fall 2008 - 73rd IETF
November 16-21, 2008
Host: TBD
Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Spring 2009 - 74th IETF
March 22-27, 2009
Host: TBD
Location: Europe (Provisional)
Summer 2009 - 75th IETF
July 26-31, 2009
Host: TBD
Location: Asia (Provisional)
Fall 2009 - 76th IETF
November 8-13, 2009
Host: TBD
Location: North America (Provisional)
Spring 2010 - 77th IETF
March 21-26, 2010
Host: TBD
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Summer 2010 - 78th IETF
July 25-30, 2010
Host: TBD
Location: Europe (Provisional)
Fall 2010 - 79th IETF
November 7-12, 2010
Host: TBD
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Spring 2011 - 80th IETF
March 27-April 1, 2011
Host: TBD
Location: Europe (Provisional)
Summer 2011 - 81st IETF
July 24-29, 2011
Host: TBD
Location: Asia (Provisional)
Fall 2011 - 82nd IETF
November 13-18, 2011
Host: TBD
Location: North America - Canada (Provisional)
Spring 2012 - 83rd IETF
March 25-30, 2012
Host: TBD
Location: Asia (Provisional)
Summer 2012 - 84th IETF
July 29-August 3, 2012
Host: TBD
Location: North America - Canada (Provisional)
Fall 2012 - 85th IETF
November 4-9, 2012
Host: TBD
Location: Europe (Provisional)
Spring 2013 - 86th IETF
March 17-22, 2013
Host: TBD
Location: North America (Provisional)
Summer 2013 - 87th IETF
July 28-August 2, 2013
Host: TBD
Location: Europe (Provisional)
Fall 2013 - 88th IETF
November 3-8, 2013
Host: TBD
Location: North America (Provisional)
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Engineering Fellow
BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of David Bagby
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:14 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
2009Plenary Session for your review
Hi Andrew -
Yep, facts can be interpreted - and one typically needs to first have
the
data to make an interpretation (well, at least "typically" in the
engineering world <grin>).
So, I'm looking to see what insights are to be had from data the
organization has.
The data may or may not be consistent with or lead to the possible
interpretations you listed.
I have no way to know since I don't have the information. w/o the
information, I prefer to refrain from speculation.
The first step seems to me to be to find out
1) what data do we have?
Then to think about
2) what does it say to us?
While I have some "gut feelings" (as I said in the email), I'm trying to
ignore those and look to see what can be learned from available data.
(I'm not in the mood to be "a north going zak". BTW - I'm not sure that
reference will xlate to Australia - were Dr. Suess books popular there?
The
response to that side bar ? Should probably not be via the SEC
reflector).
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Myles [mailto:andrew.myles@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:28 PM
To: david.bagby@ieee.org
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
2009Plenary
Session for your review
G'day Dave
Ah, "the facts". Facts may be interpreted in many ways.
One interpretation of "the facts" is that if you mainly hold IEEE 802
meetings in NA then:
* Most participants will come from NA
* Many potential and desirable participants from outside NA will not
start
attending, even if held elsewhere occasionally
* Many participants will complain about it being held elsewhere, and
will
not attend elsewhere
The IEEE SA for various good reasons has a policy that IEEE standards
work
should be international. We should do everything possible to support
this
policy.
Andrew
BTW I apologise if it is not appropriate to send this e-mail to the EC
reflector, not being an EC member.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of David Bagby
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2007 10:01 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
2009Plenary
Session for your review
Hi -
I've been reading a fair amount about how SEC members wish the world
were,
but not much discussion about how it is. For me, the recent venue
discussion
thread is missing significant points -
Heinlein may have said it best:
"What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts?
Shun
wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars
foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind
the
unguessable "verdict of history" - what are the facts, and to how many
decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your
single clue. Get the facts!"
I'd like to form my opinion re non-NA venues from some facts. I think
802
has the desired data, let's see what it tells us.
1) attendance vs. locations - what is the data?
802 is an organization that depends on volunteer labor. What are the
facts
wrt to attendance at various categories of locations? I don't have the
802
attendance data or I'd have done the exercise myself. I'd like to see
some
simple analysis of 802 attendance data. A starting idea: a simple 2 bar
graph - one bar is average attendance at NA location for some period
(say
the most recent 5 years) and the other bar is the average attendance at
non-NA locations for the same period.
I suspect there is a significant difference between the two bars.
Further I
suspect that the NA bar will be the higher one (that's just what my
experience over 17+ years of participation tells me I would expect - but
again, what are the facts?)
2) what does this data tell us?
Set aside the discussion of how SEC members "want" 802 to be perceived
in
the world (and then asserting that this justifies non-NA venues), and
let's
spend a little bit of time considering what the membership is telling us
about what they want for locations.
The requested data is likely to tell us something significant about what
the
aggregate membership is (and has been) willing to support wrt to venue
locations.
For each session the members have voted with their time and dollars -
and I
suspect the reality is that there is a real, significant, manpower cost
to
non-NA venues. Take the difference in the bars from the graph, and do
the
math - add up the delta man-hours and apply an average burdened manpower
rate (between $200 and 4250/hr the last time I looked) to convert to $ -
this will be a first estimate of a real $ cost from venue dependant
manpower
deltas.
If the membership has been willing to pay the direct costs of non-NA
venues
for the time period for which we have data, the bars will be very close
in
magnitude. If the bars are not close, that also tells us something.
802 offers a product - standards. 802's primary customers for the
product
are it's members. The members use the product to create products for
their
customers. I suspect we have a case of a company's (802's) customers
(802
members) speaking pretty clearly.
The venue/price issue has elasticity. I personally suspect that a
significant number of members have been telling the organization that
they
are not willing to pay the costs of non-NA venues (the Rome situation
would
just another example that corresponds to the data we already have). As
the
802 participation costs go up, attendance goes down. As attendance goes
down, organization productivity also goes down (the work doesn't get
done by
people that don't show up).
Perhaps a bit of consideration is also in order as to why we hold
sessions?
When I read comments of the form "I've already been to location XYZ", I
have
to wonder: Is the 802 business to produce standards products or to
provide
interesting travel locations?
Now I finally come to the sub-topic in this thread which tipped me into
writing this email...
When you see people staying elsewhere, they are voting with their
wallets.
Personally, I've stayed 99% of the time in the session hotel. That is
not
usually the lowest cost option. There are reasons this works for me -
it's a
matter of ROI - and the balance that works for me may not be the one
that
works for others.
Attempting to "penalize" attendees by charging them what someone thinks
they
"should have paid" had they stayed where "you wanted them to stay" (not
where they wanted to stay) is doomed to failure. You won't get the
"extra"
$, you'll just eliminate some more attendees - resulting in even lower
income to 802 for that session. That's the nature of the concept of
elasticity.
Like it or not, the reality is that 802 simply does not have the ability
to
reverse the economic forces in play. Increase the costs of attending
(time,
hassle and/or $) and less attend - doesn't matter how you allocate the $
between hotel, reg fess etc.
802 doesn't have to like the facts, The facts are simply what they are -
and
the facts don't care if they are liked. But.... IMHO 802 management
would
be wise to pay attention to what the data says.
Personally, I think the best business decision is to do what maximizes
the
productivity of the volunteer labor pool that creates the 802 product.
If the DATA supports more non-na venues, so be it; if the data says zero
non-NA venues so be it. If the data says all meeting should be in
Timbuktu,
so be it.
So what does the data say?
David Bagby
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Carl R.
Stevenson
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:22 PM
To: 'John Hawkins'; 'Bob O'Hara (boohara)';
STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
2009Plenary
Session for your review
Better judgments/earlier adjustments for attendance can likely be
obtained
by making the early registration period open sooner and the "ratchet up
point" occur earlier (with significant steps up for later registration).
I also liked the suggestion (I think it may have been Buzz's, but don't
recall for sure) to have a 2 tier registration ... With a "surcharge" if
you
will that would cover the "fair share" cost of meeting space and other
things for folks who choose not to book hotel rooms in our hotel/block.
To
me, that is fair, because those who stay in other hotels are impacting
our
costs for other things that are provided (and in EU charged for) by our
meeting hotel.
Regards,
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of John
> Hawkins
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:43 PM
> To: Bob O'Hara (boohara); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
> 2009Plenary Session for your review
>
> That ability certainly exists. We have a healthy reserve at the
> moment, and we have time to add to it if deemed necessary for the Rome
> session (or any other one for that matter). Note that any session
> defict by definition comes out of that reserve. Where else would it
> come from? So the trick is being able to predict attendance. This was
> the case w/ London, and will be the case going forward. It's hard to
> predict how many folks will show up, and how many rooms they will
> book.
>
> john
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
> (boohara)
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:14 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
> 2009Plenary Session for your review
>
> Even with all the uncertainty about attendance and cost, I support
> going to the Rome venue.
>
> I would like to hear John Hawkins' thoughts on the ability to use a
> growing reserve to partially offset the large meeting registration
> fee.
>
> -Bob
----------
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.
----------
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.