| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
All, I encourage everyone to share their opinions on the reflector, and not just direct them to Mr. Rosdahl. I would like to understand the perspectives of others and engage in a discussion on them now – not just listen to Mr. Rosdahl tell us in Nov what people told him privately. Jon – I encourage you to forward any comments to the reflector that you receive from individuals (names can be removed) prior to the Nov meeting. It would be good to hear these comments and discuss them before the opening meeting – and frankly as recording secretary, who assists the chair in trying to stay on schedule, I see this as a better way to use our time at the meeting, so we don’t have to discuss the comments that you have in hand now. In case you haven’t noticed – I do feel we need to figure out a way to use our time more effectively, and am willing to share these opinions with all. John From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl John, from the telecon minutes: Item #4.04 Rosdahl -Lead further discussion on reflector about use of time in relation to tutorials. Status: in process. So you are right...I am to lead discussion. - reporting on that discussion is to me the same as gathering all the comments to the reflector and those that I get in the hallway (or direct e-mail) and providing a summary to the EC. I have posed the question, and you have posted one set of alternatives to consider. No change is an option. - maybe not one you like, but it one that others may feel is sufficient and appropriate. I have responded to those that have sent me private e-mail on this matter the following: I am happy to take input without it being on the reflector... I was tasked with getting the discussion on the reflector. Now, the reporting back (to me) is implicit, if you are given an action item, you should always report back the findings - summarize a discussion -- report on the outcome -- I think you and I have had more discussion on how I have chosen to execute my action item than on the topic itself. I believe that I am acting appropriately to resolve my action item. Can we discuss the topic at hand now? Jon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:44 PM, <John_DAmbrosia@dell.com> wrote: Jon, My recollection of our discussion was for you to initiate a discussion on the reflector, not gather comments. Consensus building requires communication, not private messages. To me the issue has become significant enough that “no change” is not a viable option. J From: Jon Rosdahl [mailto:jrosdahl@ieee.org]
Thanks John, I appreciate your input and candor. What if we asked the WG to not close their work until Friday? Would it make sense to have a 2 week meeting? I agree that there are lots of alternatives. Some like scrambled eggs while others like sunny side up or Benedict. It is the alternatives that we will discuss, and then decide to follow a plan until we deem it needing to change. And one of the alternatives is no change at all... Cheers, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:29 PM, <John_DAmbrosia@dell.com> wrote: Jon, I disagree – this is not fine and not in line with the action item. Personally – plenary weeks are very limited opportunities to get together with colleagues for general consensus building. But these weeks are so filled that we need to help our members find additional time. Personally, I would throw out that the EC should consider meeting on Sunday in order to give a full day to the members on Monday. Things are that bad in terms of opportunities for us all to meet. I think asking presenters to characterize their meetings is reasonable. They can describe it as something that is general or technology specific. For example, as chair of 400G group, my tutorial would be very specific to wireline technologies. I really doubt the 802.11 crowd would care about the technical details of a tutorial. They might care about the application uses. But as the tutorial creator – I would have a feeling for this. If a meeting were not deemed generic, Paul could decree that the meeting time is available for use. My $0.02 as someone having to deal with this issue. J From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl It has been pointed out to me that there may be some that would like to respond directly to me rather than to the open group. Please send feedback/comments to jrosdahl@ieee.org Always happy to help, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Jon Rosdahl <jrosdahl@ieee.org> wrote: Hello All, I have an action item to start the discussion on the reflector for how can we maximize the time we have allocated for Tutorials. Sometimes we have tutorials that some believe are not for the whole of 802. Sometimes we have tutorials that everyone believes that they are for the whole of 802. Sometimes we have tutorials that some believe are for only one WG. This has caused a bit of angst. Historically, we have had rules that said that during the Plenaries no WG meetings were to be held on Monday or Tuesday to allow for the Tutorials to be held. Then we has a period where WGs could hold meeting regardless of the Tutorial schedule. Currently we have said that WGs should not hold meetings on Monday evenings, to clear the schedule for Tutorials, and that on Tuesday evenings if we have overflow Tutorials they can be held in parallel with WG meetings. We all recognize that our time is short and very full. Some WG utilize more time from Monday to Friday than others. Each WG utilizes the amount of time to match what they believe their Members want. How to squeeze more time has lead to this discussion on when a WG could try to gain more time? Comments and suggestions? I will look for your input and try to summarize both sides for discussion in San Antonio. Jon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 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. |