| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Tim and James,
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
Thanks for all the work. This looks like it could be a really nice activity. I have a few comments: (1) I think that the list of topics is a little confusing. At the beginning and end of the list, we have some wide-open topics. In the middle, we have two very narrow topics that many people won't even understand. (And one refers to IEE instead of IEEE). I guess that's OK in general, though it's not my personal preference. However, I would really like one addition to the list: -Innovative technology for IEEE 802 standardization This would be an opening for someone to suggest a new idea that could be the basis of a new standard. To me, something interesting in that area could be one of the primary benefits of the program for 802, and I don't see it covered by the current list. (2) More explicit rules would help the author, and also the reviewers (who will already have a tough time comparing due to the wide range of topics). These don't need to be on the flyer, but we could point to a web site. The key missing pieces I see are: -An optional template, which is particularly useful because we are probably looking for a format that is unlike what we usually expect to see as a contribution, so people may be confused. See, for example: http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/conferences/publishing/templates.html -A view regarding whether the material could be submitted to an IEEE journal without violating IEEE self-plagiarism policies. (3) I think it would be better to delete "(not including figures)". 7 pages is way more than anyone could present in a meeting. (4) I don't understand the last column of the table: it says that these papers would be presented but not published, though publication simply means posting the material to mentor. To me, it's very odd, and counterproductive, to have documents presented to 802 that are not available. In my opinion, therefore, the lower right corner of the table should have a check. (5) I think that "grant" should be "grants" in the headline. Roger Tim Godfrey wrote: EC Members, |