Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
Any chance we could get either of these venues sooner than 2011???
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Roger B. Marks
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:36 PM
> To: Geoff Thompson
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for
> 2011 and 2012
>
> Geoff,
>
> Right. On the other hand, it's possible to take a ferry
> directly from
> the Hong Kong Intl Airport to Macao, bypassing Hong Kong immigration
> and customs. This can save some time and hassle. It also eliminates
> the need for a Hong Kong visa (though nationals of most countries
> don't need one for Hong Kong anyway).
>
> As I mentioned to the EC last July, 802.16 will be meeting at the
> Venetian Macao in May.
>
> Roger
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 05:02 PM, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> ----------
> 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.