Re: [802SEC] Why Buzz
Bob -
If we had asked one attendee at the meeting to fill out the
questionnaire, and then acted upon the result, then I would agree
with you. However, that was not (by a factor of several hundred) what we did.
Regards,
Tony
At 22:39 05/12/2007, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
>Tony,
>
>But isn't that (ascribing a general principle to an isolated event)
>exactly what you and others on the EC have done with the flawed survey
>at the latest plenary? If that is not what has been done with this
>single survey, please describe to me how it is different.
>
> -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:30 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Why Buzz
>
>Bob -
>
>Neither, it would appear, do you do statistical analysis. Otherwise,
>you would be well aware that a general principle derived from an
>isolated event is highly likely to be erroneous.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 21:59 05/12/2007, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
> >Tony,
> >
> >Thanks, but I don't smoke.
> >
> >Your data actually make just the opposite point. If the Beijing
>meeting
> >falls on your increasing attendance trend line, the meeting in Monterey
> >eight months later falls dramatically below that trend, by roughly 30
> >participants. This supports the point that I made that California
> >should not be one of your interim locations, since folks don't attend
> >there. In fact, the participation in Geneva and Stockholm both drew
> >much better participation. Perhaps all your interims should be in
> >Europe.
> >
> >
> > -Bob
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> >[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
> >Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:20 AM
> >To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Why Buzz
> >
> >Bob -
> >
> >Actually, that interpretation is pretty wide of the mark if you look
> >at the trends, and clearly shows the danger of comparing figures from
> >individual meetings ~2-3 years apart when the overall attendance
> >level is doubling over the same period. But you certainly proved my
> >point that:
> >
> >"OK...now I'm sure that there will be a major outbreak of statistical
> >analysis in response to this, and I'm sure that, as with all
> >statistics, they can be made to prove anything you like."
> >
> >The two Sacramento interims, and also the Beijing interim, had
> >attendance levels that were absolutely in line with the way the
> >corresponding plenary attendances had been/were going; the two graphs
> >(plenary and interim attendance) run pretty much parallel from Jan/05
> >through to July '06. It is after that point that the interim
> >attendance shows a major decline relative to the plenary attendance.
> >If Geneva and Stockholm had had attendance figures in line with what
> >the Jan/05 through July/06 trend predicted, then the attendance
> >numbers at those two meetings would have been around 20 higher than
> >they actually were.
> >
> >So sorry Bob; no cigar.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tony
> >
> >At 18:01 05/12/2007, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
> > >Tony,
> > >
> > >I think there are a few other bits of interesting information in your
> > >attendance data.
> > >
> > >In the last two years, since January 2006, your meetings in Beijing,
> > >Geneva, and Stockholm had greater attendance than your meetings in
> > >Monterey and Sacramento. In fact, attendance at your Beijing meeting
> > >exceeded all but one of your meetings in the previous year and a half
> > >(and that one meeting was a plenary). Perhaps you should stop
>holding
> > >meetings in California. The trend certainly indicates that
> > >participation suffers when you meet there.
> > >
> > >It appears from this data that holding meetings outside North America
> > >does not disenfranchise participants, but quite the opposite. Three
>of
> > >your four meetings outside North America in the last two years (and
> >they
> > >are all interim meetings, which generally have lower attendance than
> > >plenaries) exceed the attendance for your other interim meetings in
>the
> > >same period.
> > >
> > >So, I would find it difficult to argue anything but the fact that the
> > >2/3 of the poll respondents in Atlanta were voting for anything but
> > >their own self interest, when rejecting the Rome location. Those
>that
> > >might have participated in the poll on the other side were not able
>to
> > >vote, since they were not in Atlanta, having been already
> > >disenfranchised.
> > >
> > > -Bob
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > >[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
> > >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:54 PM
> > >To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Why Buzz
> > >
> > >Mat -
> > >
> > >Clearly you can't poll people that are not there, so it makes it more
> > >difficult (but maybe not impossible - see below) to figure out how
> > >many people are (or maybe are not!) being disenfranchised by the
> > >current NA-centric plenaries.
> > >
> > >Equally clearly, you CAN figure out from polling the people that ARE
> > >there, and from other available data, certain truths.
> > >
> > > From the poll data, for example, we can determine what proportion
>of
> > >those that showed up in Atlanta would potentially be disenfranchised,
> > >depending on how high we set the meeting costs.
> > >
> > > From the attendance data at our interim meetings, we can actually
> > >get a fair idea of what effect NA vs nNA has; most (all?) of the WGs
> > >meet nNA for some of their interims these days; why not go look at
> > >the numbers and see what effect there appears to be. 802.1's meeting
> > >attendance data looks like this over the past 3 years (this is counts
> > >of people that had >75% qualifying attendance - total signins would
> > >be greater):
> > >
> > >Jan 05: 41 (Sacramento)
> > >Mar 05: 64 (Atlanta)
> > >May 05: 43 (Berlin, Germany)
> > >Jul 05: 63 (San Francisco)
> > >Sep 05: 64 (Orange County)
> > >Nov 05: 74 (Vancouver)
> > >Jan 06: 74 (Sacramento)
> > >Mar 06: 92 (Denver)
> > >May 06: 87 (Beijing, China)
> > >Jul 06: 105 (San Diego)
> > >Sep 06: 56 (York, England)
> > >Nov 06: 95 (Dallas)
> > >Jan 07: 55 (Monterey, CA)
> > >Mar 07: 108 (Orlando)
> > >May 07: 81 (Geneva, Switzerland)
> > >Jul 07 112 (San Francisco)
> > >Sep 07: 75 (Stockholm, Sweden)
> > >Nov 07: 117 (Atlanta)
> > >
> > >Now, its a small sample, and all of that, but there are some things
> > >that you can observe about these data points. Amongst them are:
> > >
> > >Firstly, there is a clear overall trend - numbers of attendees are
> > >increasing. If you look at a 2nd order polynomial trend line on a
> > >spreadsheet, plenary numbers have increased almost linearly from ~60
> > >to ~120 over the 3 years.
> > >
> > >Secondly, the attendance at plenaries is far more consistent than
> > >attendance at interims. The order polynomial trend line for interim
> > >attendance shows that while attendance in the first year and a half
> > >closely matched Plenary attendance, over the second year and a half
> > >the trend has levelled out and if anything, extrapolating onwards,
> > >is predicting a downturn in our January interim attendance. The point
> > >at which the levelling off/downturn occurs matches pretty closely
> > >with the point at which we moved from the occasional (no more than
> > >one per year) nNA Interim to 2 years where we had 2 nNA Interims in
> >each
> > >year.
> > >
> > >So, my personal "feel" for the nNA experiment as it applies to real
> > >numbers gleaned from real attendees at real meetings is that we get a
> > >falloff of serious attendees (those that attend enough to get voting
> > >attendance credit) when we hold meetings in nNA locations. The one
> > >exception to this was Beijing, where the numbers were significantly
> > >boosted by attendees from the host company.
> > >
> > >OK...now I'm sure that there will be a major outbreak of statistical
> > >analysis in response to this, and I'm sure that, as with all
> > >statistics, they can be made to prove anything you like. But my point
> > >is twofold:
> > >
> > >Firstly, using the real meeting attendance data that I have in front
> > >of me, my conclusion is that 802.1's attendance goes down when we
> > >meet nNA. If you wanted that quantified, the trend lines indicate
> > >that the hit is of the order of 20 people.
> > >
> > >Secondly, I'm getting heartily bored with arguments of the form "We
> > >don't have the data, so we can't do the analysis" being put forward
> > >to bolster potentially spurious conclusions. We have a lot of data to
> > >hand - based on real attendances at real meetings. If we took the
> > >trouble to examine it instead of throwing up our hands in despair, it
> > >might actually tell us something useful.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Tony
> > >
> > >
> > >At 18:11 04/12/2007, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> > > >Buzz,
> > > >
> > > >At some point I think we will need to agree to disagree. You can't
> > >poll
> > > >people who aren't there. We don't know who would attend our
>meetings
> > >if
> > > >we took them overseas, and your current polls won't tell you.
>Other
> > > >IEEE organization don't seem to have problems with people affording
> > > >their venues, so I don't believe we will either.
> > > >
> > > >Bottom line for me - Sure let's try hosting for year. But if it
> > >doesn't
> > > >pan out in a reasonable amount of time, we pay the extra cost and
>go
> > > >abroad anyway....
> > > >
> > > >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: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:56 PM
> > > >To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> > > >Cc: stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org; dawns@facetoface-events.com
> > > >Subject: RE: [802SEC] Why Buzz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Matt, I'm sorry but I guess I don't understand why you think
> > >excluding
> > > >people on an economic basis is any more fair or desirable than
> > >excluding
> > > >people on the basis of travel time difference, which management
> >rarely
> > > >considers in approving travel. We've had numerous comments from
>our
> > >nNA
> > > >domiciled attendees that indicate they find NA attendance easier to
> >get
> > > >approval for IEEE-802 Sessions because they are inexpensive
>relative
> >to
> > > >nNA venues. Most groups do nNA venues for interims which are much
> >more
> > > >affordable because of size and attendance is optional for those
>with
> > > >severe budget constraints. Every time we have surveyed our
>attendees
> > > >they have said nNA venues are a good idea as long as they are
> > > >affordable. Having hosts seems to be the secret to getting to
> > > >affordable, so that's what we are trying to do. And we have not
>been
> > > >trying to do that in a consistent and organized way before. We
>have
> > > >discussed it but there has never been an organized or sanctioned
> >effort
> > > >to recruit some real hosts. So I say we give it a shot a see what
>we
> > > >get. If we don't get there that way we can always go back to the
> > > >drawing board for other options but right now this looks like our
> >best
> > > >shot. So let's give it a real try with EVERY Working Group making
>a
> > > >sincere pitch to their members to find potential hosts. If we get
> >some
> > > >real competition going we just might come up with some really great
> > > >deals.
> > > >
> > > >:-) So let's work together to make this a winning plan and we can
> >all
> > > >be happy with the results !!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >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: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> > > >[mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com]
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:57 AM
> > > >To: Rigsbee, Everett O
> > > >Cc: stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org; dawns@facetoface-events.com
> > > >Subject: RE: [802SEC] Why Buzz
> > > >
> > > >Buzz,
> > > >
> > > >First off, I've already stated I support Roger's plan. However
>that
> >is
> > > >not the point in its entirety.
> > > >
> > > >You ask would I support $1500-2500 per person with everyone getting
> > > >their own hotel space because other IEEE organizations do it? The
> > > >answer is unequivocally yes! That is exactly my point.
> > > >
> > > >My view is that we have a duty to take our sessions outside of
>North
> > > >America and not stay in NA just because it is cheap. The fact that
> > > >other IEEE organizations can attract thousands of participants
>abroad
> > >is
> > > >an existence proof that it can be done and be viable. Do we want
>to
> >do
> > > >this every meeting - No way. But once a year?
> > > >
> > > >Do I want hosted meetings? Yes I would prefer that. But this is
>not
> > > >the first time that idea has been suggested and we don't seem to be
> > > >doing that well at finding hosts. So my suggestion is this - Yes
> >let's
> > > >try Roger's approach and see who signs up. But if no one signs up
>in
> > > >some reasonable period of time (1 year, 1.5 years, you tell me)
>then
> > > >lets just bite the bullet and plan that once a year we will have a
> >very
> > > >expensive meeting for the sake of getting our session to other
>areas
> >of
> > > >the world.
> > > >
> > > >At least that's my view.
> > > >
> > > >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: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
> > > >Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 8:50 PM
> > > >To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> > > >Cc: stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org; dawns@facetoface-events.com
> > > >Subject: RE: [802SEC] Why Buzz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Hey Matt, I work with those IEEE folks all the time and we share
> >lots
> > > >of info on better-than-average venues. When I showed them our
>specs
> > >and
> > > >told them what we were looking for, their response was basically
> >"Rotsa
> > > >Ruck, Joe !!!" They do lots of International Conferences that need
>a
> > > >few big rooms, an exhibit hall, little or no break-outs, and last
>for
> > > >2-3 days. Their typical attendee fees for these are
> >$1500-$2500/person
> > > >and that does not include hotels or transportation. And that's on
> >top
> > > >of all the revenue they get from their exhibitors, and with no
>hosted
> > > >F&B. Does that sound like what you think we want to do for our
> > > >attendees ??? You should stick to your IETF model; that's at least
> > > >close and the only major differences are they totally rely on
>hosting
> > > >organizations for their nNA venues and they need a lot less
> >break-outs
> > > >than we do. That's what we've learned in our 3 years of looking
>hard
> > > >for various nNA options.
> > > >
> > > >I am in touch with my counterpart at IETF (Ray Pelletier) and have
> >been
> > > >for the last 3 years. We have shared a lot of experiences and we
>are
> > > >currently working on a plan to find a nNA venue where we could do
> > > >back-to-back IETF and IEEE-802 meeting weeks, so that folks that
>want
> > >to
> > > >could do both meetings with just one trip, and we could share costs
> >of
> > > >services over the two-week spread so we get to split one set-up &
> > > >tear-down fee, and minimum Internet bandwidth charges are usually
> > > >monthly fees so we get to split that too (if it is not hosted as it
> > > >usually is for IETF). That's just one more plan under
>consideration.
> > > >
> > > >Also I should like to remind you that Paul Nikolich had already
> > > >appointed Bob Heile to be our nNA venue specialist, charged with
> > >finding
> > > >us some affordable nNA venues because I didn't have enough time and
> > > >travel budget to do the job properly. I've only stepped back in
> >lately
> > > >because nothing was happening after the groups totally vetoed Bob's
> > >plan
> > > >to go to Sydney, Australia for March 2009 because we have "been
>there
> > > >and done that".
> > > >
> > > >Also if you'll remember we had an arrangement with Mary Russell of
> > > >Hamilton Group Meeting Planners (HGMP) to find us some nNA venues
>for
> > > >our January 2007 802-hosted Interim. After a year and a half we
>came
> > > >out with exactly 1 venue (the London Metropole, which we already
>knew
> > > >about) and the cost for that service was $75K plus the $25K we paid
> >in
> > > >penalties, so another $100K down the pooper for a site that nobody
> > > >liked. And Mary Russell has great credentials for nNA venues, but
>as
> > > >she says we are either too big or too poor to be able to do this on
> >our
> > > >own. We need some hosting organizations to get better (more
> > >affordable)
> > > >deals.
> > > >
> > > >So with Roger's proposal I think we are finally on the right track,
> >but
> > > >you have to at least give it a chance to work. If I have to spend
> >all
> > > >my bandwidth on refuting all these personal attacks we really are
> >never
> > > >going to get there. So how about providing some positive support
>for
> > > >Roger's Plan and let's knock off all of this uninformed
> >second-guessing
> > > >??? It's really not helping; it's just another diversion from
>what
> > >we
> > > >really need to be doing: finding some viable hosts with viable and
> > > >affordable venues. That's where we need the help !!! Are you up
>for
> > >it
> > > >??? I hope so !!! :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >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: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> > > >[mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
> > > >Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 4:10 PM
> > > >To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Why Buzz
> > > >
> > > >Another approach to getting assistance for Buzz is to go to IEEE.
> > > >
> > > >I think they have staff that specializes in setting up meeting
> >venues.
> > > >I'm not sure how cost effective that is but it is another
> >possibility.
> > > >
> > > >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 J Lemon
> > > >Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:08 PM
> > > >To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > >Subject: [802SEC] Why Buzz
> > > >
> > > >I don't understand why Buzz has been having to do the work on
>meeting
> > > >logistics. Isn't this part of what we pay FTF to do? If it is,
>let's
> > >let
> > > >them do their job. Or, if it isn't, why isn't it? Wouldn't it make
> > >sense
> > > >to pay to have this done for us by professionals instead of either
> > > >dumping the load on Buzz or having all of us amateurs try to
>quickly
> > > >learn the business of huge meeting booking?
> > > >
> > > >If making large nNA meeting arrangements is beyond the expertise of
> > >FTF,
> > > >maybe we could issue a separate contract for booking these, or
>maybe
> > >FTF
> > > >could subcontract this out to arrangers in Europe and Asia? I'd
> >rather
> > > >the latter, as I'd prefer to have a consistent point of contact for
> >us.
> > > >And I'd hate to lose all the expertise that FTF has about what we
> >need
> > > >and desire.
> > > >
> > > >jl
> > > >
> > > >On 12/3/2007 6:04 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >----------
> > > >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.