Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] Electronic Participation in Interim Meetings
Hi Harry,
Thanks for the inputs.
So all I can do in response is share my experiences and thoughts. When
we started the Whitespace ECSG and people started signing up for the
reflector, I know we were in trouble. Over 200 people had signed up,
and when I took a straw poll on who would attend the first
teleconference, it was more than 50. But I had no choice. We had no
other way to meet, so we had to find a way to make it work.
I decided to add a web ex, and try and use it to simplify the attendance
and voting process. The first meeting frankly didn't come off so well.
We didn't have enough ports so people couldn't get on. We had to drop
the whole call and some people couldn't get back in. People went on
hold and we got to hear loud elevator music to talk over.
But by the second time round, we were getting more practiced, and the
meeting went much more smoothly. I made sure there were enough ports.
There was occasional static, but it usually was resolved quickly, and we
were able to conduct business pretty effectively. People made
presentations and most participants could see them (some chose to
participate by teleconference only). By the last couple of meetings, we
actually started doing on line votes and straw polls. The whole system
is working so smoothly now, I kind of wish I had it at our face to face
meetings.
So I'm not saying every kink is worked out, and there will never be a
glitch. But let's face it, we get glitches at our face to face meetings
where servers go down, you can't get to documents, you can't register
attendance, the mike in the room dies, etc. Things happen, and you
learn how to deal with them. This is a new medium that is available to
us. We have to learn how to best use it, but I think it can be used
effectively.
Concerning meeting fees, the infrastructure to meet electronically is
not free. If formally instituted, attendance by teleconference would
have a meeting fee associated with it. That fee could be adjusted to
reflect both costs and impact to 802. Up front participants would know
that they have a choice for how to participate - one would be lower
overall cost (time and money), but would also not provide as much
benefit. Since we (IEEE 802) would decide how and when it is
implemented, we could do it in a phased approach, and see what impact it
actually has. But frankly I am more concerned about 'fairness' to all
participants involved, rather than the cost to implement the process.
The me that will be the biggest experiment from the interim. Can
in-person and electronic participants both participate, and will they
all feel fairly represented.
Bottom line for now, this is just an experiment. The EC still need to
meet and conclude if it has any merit what so ever. Personally, I
believe it does have merit. However, I don't think we should instantly
implement it.
Happy New Year (a bit late), and hope all is well!
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@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 4:09 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] Electronic Participation in Interim
Meetings
Forwarded on behalf of Harry Worstell.
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
________________________________
From: Harry Worstell [mailto:hworstell@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 3:01 PM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Electronic Participation in Interim Meetings
Dear Mat,
As I have been Vice Chair for 8 years and been participating in the
IEEE802 standards meetings for over 10 years, We have attempted many
times to have conference calls at ad-hoc sessions and it did not work.
Only a very limited number of participants could get into the
conversations and it is very difficult for the chair to keep track of
meeting participants and call participants who want to speak. Many times
the participant on the call is very disruptive to the meeting which the
Chair has a more difficult time keepng the meeting in order. On calls,
you can't just raise your hand. The participant must disrupt the meeting
to gain access to comment. Also, Why would anyone want to spend the
money for MEETING FEES, air fare, hotel rooms, car rentals, ad food to
participate in a meeting. You still have the cost of meeting rooms that
the call-in participants don't cover. This is extreamly unfair to those
who do attend the meeting versus those who just sit home and get a free
ride. I completly agree with Buzz on this issue. This would be a ticking
time bomb.
You can share my response if you wish.
Best regards,
Harry Worstell
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Electronic Participation in Interim Meetings
> Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:16:46 -0500
> From: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> To: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> CC: dawns@FACETOFACE-EVENTS.COM; lisa@FACETOFACE-EVENTS.COM;
p.nikolich@IEEE.ORG; jhawkins@NORTEL.COM
>
> Buzz / All,
>
> Please see responses in line below.
>
> 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: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:00 PM
> To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Cc: dawns@facetoface-events.com; lisa@facetoface-events.com;
> p.nikolich@ieee.org; jhawkins@nortel.com
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Electronic Participation in Interim Meetings
>
>
> Gee Mat, Is it at least possible to actually see the proposed
> hypothesis and metrics ???
>
>
> **** Mat - Yes. They are still being formalized, but will be available
> shortly
>
> Forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical of the value of this but I have
> been talking with my counterpart at the IETF, who have been doing this
> kind facility for years and they've cutback on it substantially
because
> they found that it was getting more & more expensive and hard to
> support, and that it was seriously hurting their attendance at some
key
> forums. It also make it almost impossible to track actual
> participation: something we still seem to think is important.
>
> **** Mat - Yes these are key issues. There is both good and bad to be
> discussed. In person attendance may go down, but that may mean that it
> costs less to develop standards. If it is the same quality standard,
> isn't that a good thing?
>
>
> Maybe it's OK for start-up events such as ECSGs where broadest
> participation is a key ingredient, but I would be careful about
> attempting to make it an integral part of our ongoing Working Group
> sessions because of the perceived negative impact on actual
> participation.
>
> **** Mat - This is just an experiment. The idea is to bring the data
to
> the EC for consideration if this should be generally permitted at all.
> If permitted, I think it would be on be on a WG by WG basis. Note that
> I consider the ECSG unique in that it has participation from across
many
> working groups (some of which may not normally participate in the
> Wireless Interim), and outside organizations who don't normally attend
> 802. In addition some participants have lost their sponsorship (or
> perhaps never had any) and are looking for lower cost means to
> participate. Since the ECSG has no membership (whoever shows up can
> vote) and we already take votes on teleconferences, it is probably an
> ideal vehicle to run an experiment with. Note that letter ballots for
> SG are prohibited in the rules, so the only way we can vote between
> meetings in on teleconferences.
>
>
> Maybe in these times of severe economic stress it makes sense for us
to
> explore some other avenues for WG participation but I would suggest
that
> we use a metric that such participation is made reliably trackable and
> that it require registration & fees that at least covers the costs of
> any such special provisions. It would be patently unfair to saddle the
> already burdened in-person attendees with the cost of allowing access
> for electronic attendees.
>
> **** Mat - Agree 100%!!!!!
>
> We need to discuss and think through these kind of changes carefully
> before making any significant changes in our policies and procedures.
>
> **** Mat - Strangely enough, there are no rules expressly prohibiting
> this today. Traditionally (with reason) it is not permitted by IEEE
> 802, but that fact is not written down. I agree no changes in the P&P
> should be made one way or the other without careful consideration.
> Thanks for the inputs!
>
>
>
> Thanx, Buzz
> Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> Executive Secretary, IEEE-802 LMSC
> 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: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:54 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802SEC] Electronic Participation in Interim Meetings
>
> EC Members,
>
>
>
> I have received requests from TV Whitespace ECSG members to allow
> electronic participation (teleconference / Webex) for the ECSG
meetings
> at the upcoming Wireless Interim in LA. I have discussed this with the
> IEEE 802.11 Chair (Bruce) who has no objection, and made sure that
> appropriate facilities are available. I checked with the IEEE 802
chair
> (Paul) who said he would permit electronic participation for the ECSG
at
> the interim if it was conducted as an 'Experiment' (with hypothesis
and
> metrics) to see if it adds clear value to the standards process.
> Accordingly we have formulated a hypothesis and metrics and plan to
> conduct three two hour meetings at the wireless interim that include
> electronic participation, and will conduct straw polls at the end of
the
> session to see if the metrics support our hypothesis. We will make the
> results of this experiment available to the EC at the March session,
> along with other planned outputs from the ECSG.
>
>
>
> If you have any questions about this, please feel free to contact me.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Matthew Sherman
> Chair, IEEE802 Whitespace ECSG
> BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> <mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> 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.