Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
Carl,
I think either Paul has to bring the motion to ballot (with you as
motioner and me as seconder) or he has to designate someone to run the
ballot on the motion.
Tony,
First I am fully supportive of Roger's plan and think we should go
forward. I recognize that many of us are now getting involved and
trying to assist Buzz. But it bothers me that we have worked on this
for 3 years (if I've understood correctly) without finding a solution,
and that we now have at least 4 more years (5 since we just gave away
2011 as well as 2009 as being potentially to 'too hard' to take non-NA).
Where does it end?
I think we need to place a strong focus on solving the problem. The
fact that there is a 'safe solution' I believe is preventing us from
focusing on solving the problem. It's time to fly without a net.
By the way, we already ripped up one decision we made that would have
forced us to go to Rome (non-NA). We can always rip up this motion too
if it becomes apparent we can't find a venue. But I would like that for
at least one year Buzz truly focuses on finding a non-NA venue with out
the distraction of NA venues to consider.
Mat
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 Tony Jeffree
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 2:05 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
Carl -
While I support the desired end result of this motion (that we get
nNA meetings ASAP), I feel that it is ill-advised.
Firstly, making motions isn't going to make nNA meetings happen. The
only thing that will ensure that it will happen is all of us (not
just Buzz, Bob H or Face-To-Face) doing what is in our power to
actively pursue possible venues. Right now, I am already doing just
that with my old University (which will of course only be a viable
choice as a July meeting, so preesumably wouldn't meet the
requirements of your motion anyway); I don't know yet whether it is a
viable venue, but there's only one way to find out. If that one
fails, then I will look elsewhere for a campus venue in the UK. We
all have contacts of one form or another (via clients, employers, WG
members... whatever) that we could potentially tap into. For my
money, that is a more fruitful approach.
Secondly, Putting this kind of straight-jacket on what we can and
cannot book has the potential fallout (as Buzz has already pointed
out) that we end up with no palatable venues at all for the empty
slots 2011 on. I don't think that is what we want to happen.
So rather than making what seems to me to be a rather empty gesture
by passing a "Make it so" motion, I would prefer to see us pass a
motion accepting Roger's proposed process (or some near variant
thereof) for choosing potential nNA venues in the future, and that we
follow up by actually getting our hands dirty with finding some
candidates to choose between.
Regards,
Tony
At 13:30 02/12/2007, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>I would accept the following change to my original motion:
>
>Moved: That 802 sign no contracts for NA plenary venues beyond 2011
until we
>have viable, affordable nNA venues in place for March 2011 and 2012.
>
>That will give Buzz the flexibility to book July and Nov 2011 (for
which he
>apparently has deals in the works, if I understand Mat's comment
correctly),
>but require us to focus remaining energy in the near term to finding
nNA
>venues for March 2011 and a 2012 plenary, which could be any of the
three.
>
>Mat, do I have it right and do you second the ammended motion above?
>
>Regards,
>Carl
>
>
>
> > -----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: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:07 AM
> > To: Rigsbee, Everett O; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> >
> > First,
> >
> > I am willing to second Carl's motion (but with a friendly
amendment).
> >
> > I can accept booking 2011 as a North American venue. There
> > is only the March meeting left and I think Buzz has already
> > worked the deals.
> > However I believe we should be focusing all our energy on
> > Non-NA venues after that.
> >
> > So my recommended motion if Carl will accept it is:
> >
> > Moved: That 802 sign no further contracts for NA plenary
> > venues beyond
> > 2011 until we have *viable, affordable* nNA venues in place for
2012.
> >
> > Until we start getting working non-NA venues, I think we all
> > need to chip in and assist Buzz. But we need to light a fire
> > underneath ourselves. 6 years to figure out how to do this
> > is simply too long.
> >
> > Mat
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Rigsbee,
> > Everett O
> > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 1:27 PM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> >
> > Colleagues, This motion is a really "BAD" idea for several
reasons
> > but I will explain a couple of them in some detail:
> >
> > 1. We have NO definitions for what is "viable" and what is
> > "affordable"
> > beyond what we got in our last survey, which several people
> > seem to think was flawed in one or more ways. So I would
> > suggest that if we want to put any qualifiers on nNA venue
> > selections we need to do some homework to decide what are the
> > appropriate qualifiers to ensure that they produce the best
> > Good for all of IEEE-802. I tend to agree with Roger Marks
> > that the best nNA venues will be those that have good support
> > from local hosts but finding appropriate hosts for nNA venues
> > will take some time as we have seen from Roger's schedule.
> > And when have we reached our goal ??? When we have selected
> > a site for 2011, or when we actually have all contracts in
> > place, which might take up to a year after selection? Do we
> > also have to have a completed deal for March 2012 as well ???
> > That might take another year to complete. How do we know,
> > "Are we done yet ???"
> >
> > 2. Meanwhile we have open slots in our schedule that we need
> > to book 3 to 4 years out to get access to any of the venues
> > we actually like, such as San Francisco, Maui, New Orleans,
> > and San Antonio. If we are not actively booking those slots
> > while we have good choices available, I can absolutely
> > guarantee that you will NOT like the choices we have at only
> > 2 years out (are we ready for HR-DFW or Hilton WDW again
> > ???). Right now we do have some good choices that we have
> > spent many hours working to bring you, but if we pass on
> > those for an indefinite period, you will not get another shot
> > at them. If we want to consider some constraints on future
> > venues let's focus on those that are in 2013 and beyond but I
> > would suggest that we do that by just not supporting venues
> > further out until we have some nNA venues on the schedule.
> > But I sincerely believe each venue needs to be judged on its
> > own merits and that we need to continuously seek guidance
> > from our membership as to what is really most important to
> > the success of the organization as a whole.
> >
> >
> > Thanx, Buzz
> > Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> > Boeing IT
> > PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> > Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> > Ph: (425) 373-8960 Fx: (425) 865-7960
> > Cell: (425) 417-1022
> > everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@wk3c.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 8:17 AM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Having been asked to wait until the previous ballot closed,
> > the following would now appear to be timely.
> >
> > Moved: That 802 sign no further contracts for NA plenary
> > venues until we have *viable, affordable* nNA venues in place
> > for 2011 and 2012.
> >
> > Background: It appears that we require some "feet to the fire"
> > motivation to
> > find, select, and contract for nNA plenary venues. This
> > motion, if approved, would require that we meet our 3 year
> > old policy objective to hold at least one nNA plenary
> > annually, starting at the earliest possible time and assure
> > that ALL possible plenary session dates that are not already
> > contracted for be considered for nNA until we have contracted
> > viable, affordable nNA venues for 2011 and 2012.
> >
> > Regards from the BoG meeting in Florida,
> >
> > Carl
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.