Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
Hi Pat, Not sure the motion is necessary. We were in agreement with
the proposal from the start, and based on the fact that there were no
objections to the proposal, we have adopted and are already following
the proposal and timeline to get us to confirmed sites by July 2008.
The really good news is that by readjusting our sites for March 2011 and
beyond there are now some really awesome venue choices available for us
that could solve our nNA venue problems for us permanently. We already
have 2 candidate venues with hosts lined up: one for the 2500 room
Marina Bay Sands Hotel in downtown Singapore that has over 1,000,000
sq.ft. of function space, 10 restaurants, a spa and fitness center, and
a science & art museum; the other for the Venetian Macao in the Hong
Kong province of PRC, which has 3000 all-suites rooms and over 1,000,000
sq.ft. of meeting space. Both of these could easily do a IEEE-802
plenary and at much more affordable prices than what we were seeing for
Rome. We will still follow the Roger process to ensure we find the best
deals available but it is very nice to start off with something greater
than the empty set to consider in our deliberations. So I think this
time we are going to get some great choices.
See the links below for more info:
Marina Bay Sands: http://www.marinabaysands.com/index.html
Venetian Macau: http://www.venetianmacao.com/en/home.aspx
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: Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@BROADCOM.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:28 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and
2012
Paul,
Can we run this motion? I am concerned that if we don't start it soon we
will lose the ability to start the non-NA proposal process with
tentative proposals due for our March meeting and firm proposals in
July. If it pushes out further, it may make March 2011 very difficult.
In my last email I pointed out that it is more efficient for us to work
on planning for these three meetings in the same proposal cycle. Running
a concurrent process for the three plenaries may also make it easier for
potential hosts. When they contact possible venues, they can ask about
availabilty for any of the three dates.
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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.