| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Steve – no. But I believe we need the flexibility, and we need it beyond July. the language clearly says ‘in exceptional cases’.
From: Steve Shellhammer <sshellha@qti.qualcomm.com> George, Are you suggesting we start holding electronic plenary meetings on a regular basis? Regards, Steve From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of George Zimmerman CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization. I left something very important unsaid – please take this as discussion to fix issues of concern. we do need a solution to the problem of holding electronic plenaries. it isn’t going to solve itself. I believe Roger and others have thought
through the issues raised. if there are nuances missed, lets fix them. (and James, thank you for at least enumerating your concerns) From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of George Zimmerman James – I’ve been hearing ‘oh there are problems’, but haven’t seen any of them stand up to analysis and detail. Unless we consider an ‘electronic plenary session’ to be held on a different schedule with different rules and operations than an
ordinary one, most of your points below are moot and covered in the proposed text. On point 1 - I disagree with your reading. First, hopefully we agree that we must have the power to cancel a meeting with less than 30 days notice. (in fact, we have done that with the March meeting).
So the question is, does the requirement to announce a meeting does not restrict the ability to rearrange the logistics of that meeting. I submit we have, and exercise, that ability too. The question is, if the meeting logistics & locations
are controlled, at what level of detail would have the meeting logistics controlled? Is it the country? is it the city? is it the hotel? is it the room? The language already stipulates the times and dates are the same. The location logistics aren’t really
spelled out in our rules, and hence, I argue, can’t be restricted. As long as fair access is maintained, I believe we have met the spirit of the announcement. Note that meeting rooms and times for subgroups within the same time frame change with less than
30 days notice all the time. This provision is not ‘null and void’ but may be subject to some restriction and further definition. It seems the key question is whether an ‘electronic Plenary’ is simply substituting a virtual venue, with the same time schedule, for a physical venue. I at least assumed it was. This is based on the sentence “may
decide that the Plenary Session will be held by electronic means as an electronic Plenary Session on the preannounced dates per an announced time zone. “ - note that the venue is canceled, and the dates and times are maintained. This obviates your objections
2 and 3, and 5 (only the venue is changed – so yes, they are the same, by definition. By your objection, a ‘Bangkok plenary session’
would be governed by different rules than a ‘Chicago plenary session’ – nonsense. ‘electronic’ is defined as just another venue by the language. (if you want to object to that, it is a different thing) I believe (6) is covered by the sentence “With the exception of electronic Plenary Sessions, all active IEEE 802 Working Groups shall meet in-person (possibly with one or more participants contributing via electronic
means) during each Plenary Session.". all active groups need to meet in person during each (non-electronic) plenary… the decision to go electronic is at the LMSC level, and they can’t individually decide to meet electronically. That leaves (4), tying to the WG P&Ps. Can you be more specific as to the problem? it is still a plenary – as stated earlier, under this language the venue has just changed. Unless there are specific prohibitions
in the WG P&Ps against electronic meetings, this should not be a problem. -george From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of Karl Blig All I vote disapprove. There are multiple errors and problems with the proposal which have not been fixed. 1) For example, the phrase "In exceptional cases, with less than 30 days notice if necessary," contradicts the 30 day notice in the P&P and therefore is null and void. 2) There is no limit in this for the duration of an electronic plenary. 3) The PAR approval process later in the OM is in conflict with a free form "electronic Plenary session" as it has specific times and days. 4) Nothing in this proposal synchronizes it with the WG P&P and will cause issues with attendance. 5) No where does it say that in other sections the term "Plenary Session" is equivalent to "electronic Plenary Session" 6) We had introduced the requirement that a WG meets in person during a Plenary session to avoid the case, which has happened during the past, where a WG skipped the plenary
session, holding a call instead. In short, it introduces more problems than it solves. It was not discussed in depth during any conference call. James Gilb On Thursday, June 4, 2020, 1:09:15 PM PDT, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> wrote:
Dear LMSC,
Roger To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 |