Re: [802SEC] Why Buzz
Bob -
Ah - I see - so we're back to Mat's argument that the survey results
were invalid because of the sampling method. Thanks for that - your
argument supports the points I made 2 days ago in this thread:
"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."
and
"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."
We've got plenty of data, going back several years, that can give us
a much clearer picture of what the location sensitivity of our
potential participant population actually is. We just have to look at it.
So if you want to continue down the "the survey was flawed" path,
then please go do the analysis that I have suggested, and when you've
done it, come back and tell us whether the survey result would have
been materially affected by location sensitivity in the sample population.
However, if you really want to get a clear picture of what a "valid"
survey would have told you, rather than just having an argument that
allows you to dismiss the survey as "invalid", then you will also
have to figure out what the likely outcome would have been if the
responders had been fully informed of all of the potential problems
with the Rome venue that came out on the EC reflector in the
subsequent discussion and the motion to amend.
So, while the location sensitivity question is an important one for
us to understand going forward, and one that we really do need to
answer, I personally believe that it is massively irrelevant in the
context of that one particular decision, because if, when we
discussed it in November, we had known what we know now about all of
the problems with that Rome venue, then the outcome of the EC motions
would have been totally different.
Regards,
Tony
At 00:49 06/12/2007, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
>No, we took one sample of a self-selected set of respondents with no
>idea how the respondents relate statistically to our entire membership,
>or more importantly, how the respondents relate to the set of potential
>attendees in Europe or in Asia. On that statistically dubious basis, we
>came to a very broad conclusion that 802 as a whole did not want to meet
>in Rome and that, if we did choose to meet in Rome, attendance would be
>abysmal.
>
>If you presented that to a statistics professor as a class project, you
>would be sent to remedial class for a year!
>
> -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 3:02 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: 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.
>
>----------
>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.