Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
Carl -
There is no motion on the floor until Paul says there is. He's
already indicated that there won't be one until next week.
Regards,
Tony
At 18:14 04/12/2007, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>Point of order ...
>
>There is a motion on the floor (mine) and it has been seconded (by Mat).
>
>Carl
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 2:09 PM
> > To: Paul Nikolich; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for
> > 2011 and 2012
> >
> > I would be willing to second or make a motion as Tony
> > suggests. Proposed
> > text for a motion is below.
> >
> > Buzz, what is the situation for July 2011? Are we open to a non-North
> > American location for that?
> > I would prefer to be able to say March or July because
> > university venues
> > would maily be for a summer meeting.
> >
> > The process below is what Roger proposed except:
> > Changed date for getting draft facility requirements to 15
> > January to give prospective hosts a little more time to find a
> > prospective venue fitting the requirements.
> > Changed last bullet to plural for "proposals" to cover 2011 and
> > 2012.
> >
> > I suggest a motion as follows:
> >
> > To adopt the following process for finding and choosing non-North
> > American plenary venues for March 2011 and March or July 2012
> >
> > (1) by 15 January: IEEE 802 Executive Secretary issues a
> > draft set of
> > facility requirements and issues a Request for Interest (RfI)
> > seeking
> > a letter of intent from any prospective hosts.
> > (2) 7 March: Deadline for letter of intent that would name
> > prospective host and venue but without a firm commitment to host.
> > (3) 21 March: 802 EC approves a request for proposals (RfP),
> > including facility requirements and hosting specifications, with a
> > specific submittal template to allow ready intercomparison. 802 EC
> > also authorizes travel expenses for site visits to prospective hosts
> > identified by letter of intent.
> > (4) 20 June: Deadline for host proposals issued in response
> > to the RfP.
> > (5) 1 July: Executive Secretary submits report summarizing proposals
> > and results of site visits.
> > (6) 14 July: During a tutorial slot, host candidates overview their
> > proposals.
> > (7) 18 July: 802 EC votes to accept proposals.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pat
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:42 AM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Tony's suggestion: "... 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."
> >
> > makes sense to me.
> >
> > FYI the SASB meetings are being held this week and I need to
> > pay close
> > attention to what is happening down there in FL, so I'd like to put
> > taking
> > any action on the nNA issue on hold for a week--but let the debate
> > continue,
> > perhaps by next Monday we'll have a sensible motion crafted
> > that will be
> >
> > ready for email ballot to close before the end of the year holidays?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --Paul
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK>
> > To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> >
> >
> > > At 01:26 03/12/2007, Sherman, Matthew J. \(US SSA\) wrote:
> > >
> > >>Tony,
> > >>
> > >>First I am fully supportive of Roger's plan and think we should go
> > >>forward.
> > >
> > > In which case I am sure you would have no problem
> > supporting a motion
> > that
> > > approves that as a plan going forward.
> > >
> > >>I recognize that many of us are now getting involved and
> > >>trying to assist Buzz.
> > >
> > > The point I was trying to make is that until we are *all*
> > (and I mean
> > all,
> > > not just a few or even the majority) actively involved in
> > fixing this
> > > problem, then
> > >
> > > (a) the likelihood of it getting fixed is small,
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > (b) we have no business passing motions of the form "Until they fix
> > the
> > > problem then they can't do X".
> > >
> > >>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?
> > >
> > > ...but that is precisely my point. "We", for the most part, haven't
> > been
> > > working on it *at all* other than offering occasional
> > encouragement to
> >
> > > others and passing the odd motion. Big deal. Its time we stopped
> > passing
> > > vacuous motions and got with the program.
> > >
> > >
> > >>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.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry...that doesn't make much more sense to me than your
> > "learning
> > > from experience" comment earlier in the discussion.
> > >
> > >
> > >>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.
> > >
> > > In which case, why bother to make the motion in the first place?
> > >
> > >>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.
> > >
> > > I repeat, I would like for *us all* to truly focus on the problem.
> > Buzz is
> > > a volunteer, just like the rest of us; this isn't his only job. And
> > there
> > > is a limit to what one person can do in a situation where we are
> > > attempting to do something that is new for the organisation and may
> > not
> > > necessarily conform to the way business is routinely done in NA. He
> > > doesn't need us making more rods for his back; what he needs is
> > practical
> > > help and support. Lets start doing that.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tony
> > >
> > >
> > >>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.
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.