Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,2009 Plenary Session for your review
Roger-
Very interesting.
Would it be possible to filter out everybody (interim and plenary) who is a
one timer?
Geoff
At 05:31 PM 9/17/2007 , Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Taking Phil's point about attendance vs. geography in 802.16, I
>compiled some stats. Because attendance varies with the state of the
>projects, I've looked at the attendance at each 802.16 session in
>comparison to the adjacent plenary attendance (for which I averaged
>the preceding and following plenaries). It looks like this:
>
> Attendance vs. plenary
>17-May-04 Shenzhen, China 228 people -50 people
>30-Aug-04 Seoul, Korea 288 -62
>24-Jan-05 Sanya, Hainan, China 313 -41
>02-May-05 Sorrento, Italy 218 -123
>12-Sep-05 Taipei 225 -42
>09-Jan-06 New Delhi, India 111 -94
>08-May-06 Tel Aviv, Israel 122 -142
>25-Sep-06 Mont Tremblant, Canada 191 -125
>15-Jan-07 London, UK 274 -67
>07-May-07 Portland, USA 303 -108
>
>The geographic averages:
> Asia -58 -22%
> Asia (without India) -48 -16%
> Europe/Middle East -110 -37%
> North America -116 -33%
>
>Bottom line: attendance was best in Asia: around 20% less than the
>adjacent plenaries. For North America and Europe/Middle East,
>attendance was about 35% less than the adjacent plenaries.
>
>Considering that a lot of attendees at a plenary are people who poke
>in when their primary working group is on break, -20% is pretty small.
>
>There are a lot of caveats here. For example, since 802.16's interims
>are hosted, there are usually interested people living near the
>meeting site.
>
>The bottom line is that Asia seems to be our best attendance draw;
>North America and Europe are in second place.
>
>Roger
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Phillip Barber [mailto:pbarber@huawei.com]
>>Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:06 AM
>>To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>>Cc: 'Roger B. Marks'
>>Subject: FW: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March
>>8-13,2009Plenary
>>Session for your review
>>
>>Matt,
>>
>>It does not appear that Roger was available (or perhaps interested) in
>>making the following comments on my behalf.
>>
>>While I realize that the observations are only anecdotal (you can view
>>the
>>attendance history for all 802.16 meetings at
>>http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/meetings/reports.html), what
>>I can
>>say
>>is that over the last several years Interim 802.16 meetings held in
>>Europe
>>or Asia had very near and in a few cases higher attendance than the
>>immediately preceding Plenary meeting. I consider this significant
>>because
>>historically, as with many other Working Groups, 802.16 Interim
>>meetings
>>in
>>North American and other geo venues typically have appreciably lower
>>attendance than for Plenaries. So for 802.16, European and Asian
>>Interim
>>meetings appear to be a significant statistical aberration
>>demonstrating
>>higher regional interest. And, no, these are not boondoggles to
>>interesting
>>and exciting locales. If you dig deeper into the attendance logs you
>>will
>>find that even though some 802.16 Members did not attend these
>>European
>>and
>>Asian Interims, their lack of attendance was compensated for by local
>>attendance, which I believe is exactly the point: encouraging
>>international
>>interest and participation. At least for 802.16, I would say that the
>>strategy appears to be successful, the 802.16 Membership numbers
>>continue to
>>swell and over half of 802.16 Members are non-North American (see
>>http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/members.html; geo Membership
>>distribution for 802.16 by my count as of San Francisco 2007 Plenary:
>>142
>>Asian, 32 European, 164 North American, 12 Middle East; slight
>>majority
>>from
>>non-North America).
>>
>>Of course other Working Groups experience may vary. But I suspect that
>>if
>>IEEE-SA makes itself more accessible to the rest of the planet then
>>the
>>results will be similar to 802.16.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Phillip Barber
>>Chief Scientist
>>Wireless Advanced Research and Standards
>>Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Sherman,
>>Matthew
>>J. (US SSA)
>>Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 6:59 AM
>>To: david.bagby@IEEE.ORG; 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.
>
>----------
>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.