Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
Buzz-
That "the Venetian Macao in the Hong Kong province of PRC" is an incorrect
statement.
Hong Kong is not a "province" but rather a "Special Administrative Region"
(S.A.R.). Macau is not within the Hong Kong S.A.R. but is within a separate
and distinct S.A.R. of its own. Hong Kong was a British Territory, Macau
belonged to Portugal. Chinese and Portuguese are the two official languages
Geoff
At 03:26 PM 12/18/2007 , Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
>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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.