There might be some confusion – I was not
looking for a decision prior to the Friday EC meeting.
I’m not quite sure which calendars you all
are looking at, or if I am looking at the wrong one (http://www.ieee802.org/802tele_calendar.html
). The posted calendar shows our 802 EC meeting is Friday
July 24 (not the 23rd) is after the last of the
working group meetings have concluded. The dates and sequence
put forward in the prior emails don’t align with what I see,
and there is a material difference.
By Friday’s EC meeting, the information
should all be in by then – if not, we will have lost the
opportunity to gather it at a working group meeting – of
course if the working group chairs feel they need to reflect
on the meeting afterwards, that is their prerogative, and I
would yield to that.
I would suggest that whether there is
impact in waiting until August to make the decision (and make
it for certain), it is really not a matter to say ‘I see no
reason for my group to make the decision today’. This is the
kind of thing, that in considering for all 802, I believe we
should side with the ‘weakest link’. If any group has an
issue in delaying, we should identify a substantial offsetting
benefit for any delay – not just ‘what if something comes
up’. That is neither good governance nor good management.
This is a situation where a minority (on the EC’s) perceived
needs could drive a decision.
Of course, if the working group chairs come
back and all indicate there is no substantial issue with
delay, then I’m fine with that OK; however, that isn’t what I
expect and hasn’t been what I’ve been hearing from membership.
-george
I
concur with James' suggestion that July 23rd is too soon to
decide on the schedule for November. While we have learned a
great deal, to analyze the data before the experiment is
completed compromises the results. 802.3, 802.18 and 802.19
have yet to complete the scheduled meetings. The plenary
will not be completed until Friday when the EC meeting ends.
Putting the conclusion before the data analysis is not sound
engineering.
For
those who may want to evaluate the July experiment based on
the actual experience, the extra 11 days time is valuable.
FWIW
Benjamin Rolfe (BCA)
On 7/19/2020 5:31 PM, James P. K. Gilb
wrote:
George
My view, which has been consistent, is that we should wait
for feedback from the WGs as our purpose is to enable them
to operate as efficiently as possible.
I have not heard anyone state that we should wait until a
certain time. I don't know anyone who has stated that we
need to wait until August or later.
We should have the feedback by the August 4th meeting,
perhaps sooner. That will enable us to make a decision in
plenty of time for future planning.
The difference between a decision at the July 23rd meeting
and the August 4th meeting is only 11 days.
If there is a _specific_ item that needs to be scheduled
right now, I would be interested to hear what it is.
If attempt to decide without the necessary information, then
it is more likey that we would need to change the schedule,
which works counter to the argument that we need, right now,
to nail down the times for the plenary.
James Gilb
On 7/17/20 3:31 PM, George Zimmerman wrote:
All -
I meant to get this out earlier, but the week has gotten
away from me.
I would like to speak in support of providing clarity on
the schedule and nature of the November IEEE 802 meeting.
I have heard discussion of waiting until August, or even
perhaps later to do this, and would advise against it.
This is for several reasons:
First, our participants are asking. It is not just idle
curiousity. They are trying to make plans for their own
schedules and their own participation. I can personally
tell you that what are minor changes in the schedule for
802 meetings in July has made a mess of plans I made back
in May. I have adjusted, but knowing about the schedule
earlier would have avoided a bunch of work and juggling
activities. Others plan meetings and reviews well in
advance, and need the benefit of clarity in the 802
schedule in order to maximize their participation.
Second, the leaders of our more active groups need to
advance plan and synchronize multiple levels of effort.
New activity (study group) initiation, PAR review, Task
Force reviews, and Working group meetings all interlock
with the plenary schedule. Things work better when
planned. We all appreciate a well-run meeting, and, if
you're seeing what I'm seeing, these virtual meetings
require more, not less work. We are generally quite good
at making these things work seamlessly, but it is because
a number of activities are aligned well in advance -
usually around the exit of the previous plenary cycle -
which is now.
Finally, most of the input will be in by Friday. All of
our working groups will have finished meeting. If there
is critical input or data needed, let us identify it.
Otherwise, we are just delaying a decision for a 'what if'
case and incurring the penalty of continued uncertainty
which doesn't serve our participants well and makes our
leaders' jobs harder.
Thanks for listening - it has been a long week.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
george@cmephyconsulting.com<mailto:george@cmephyconsulting.com>
310-920-3860
----------
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.