Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
Roger -
I would support those changes.
Regards,
Tony
At 02:48 06/12/2007, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Pat,
>
>I'm happy to support (and second, or third...) your proposed motion.
>However, your proposal is based on the schedule I suggested for a
>selection decision in July 2008. I propose to modify your language to
>make it apply generically to any set of dates:
>
>(1) two months before 802 Plenary Session X: 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) 10 days before 802 Plenary Session X: Deadline for letter of
>intent that would name prospective host and venue but without a firm
>commitment to host.
>(3) EC meeting at the end of 802 Plenary Session X: 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) 24 days before 802 Plenary Session X+1: Deadline for host
>proposals issued in response to the RfP.
>(5) 13 days before 802 Plenary Session X+1: Executive Secretary
>submits report summarizing proposals and results of site visits.
>(6) Monday or Tuesday of 802 Plenary Session X+1: During a tutorial
>slot, host candidates overview their proposals.
>(7) EC meeting at the end of 802 Plenary Session X+1: 802 EC votes on
>accepting a proposal.
>
>Roger
>
>
>On Dec 3, 2007, at 07:37 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
>
>>Based on Buzz's input regarding university venues, I am removing July
>>2012 and adding in July 2013.
>>
>>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 2012, July 2013
>>
>>(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.
>
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.