Re: [802SEC] Electronic Participation in Interim Meetings
All
I agree with Tony here. If we use it at all, it is only for limited
topics which require specific expertise.
I also think that the barrier of travel time and expense is a measure of
the importance the people have for developing the standard. At the very
least, all participants should pay the entire meeting fee. The cost of
a wireless interim fee is normally less than $700. The cost of the time
that a person spends working on the standards development far exceeds
this modest expense.
James Gilb
Tony Jeffree wrote:
> Buzz -
>
> I agree - this is a slippery slope. In .1 we have very occasionally allowed dial in access
> where there was a specific topic that needed expert input - the most recent example being
> MIB discussions - but we have done it only for that topic, not as a blanket facility for
> the meeting. I believe it really only works under very limited circumstances - namely,
> where the caller(s)-in are the primary focus of the discussion, rather than where people
> are calling in just for regular participation.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On
> Behalf Of Rigsbee, Everett O
> Sent: 10 January 2009 19:39
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Electronic Participation in Interim Meetings
>
> Hi Mat, Again I urge you to be careful of the slippery slope here. Our
> rules don't actually prohibit setting off bombs in the meeting rooms or
> pantsing the WG Chairs but that doesn't mean we necessarily want to
> allow that to go on either. Just because we can do something doesn't
> mean we should.
>
> Virtual attendance is very hard to regulate and ensure that people are
> tuned in to what is going on, and is subject to abuse by those who wish
> to employ dominance within the WG. So I would suggest that you are
> correct that it may be likely to make most sense in the context of an
> ECSG.
>
>
> 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 11:17 AM
> To: Rigsbee, Everett O; 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
>
> 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.