Thank you, Dorothy, this is helpful. I’m
inclined to think that members who require rationalization
generally should answer no, because we can’t really count on
support. They might be convinced, but may not be, but they
should understand that we charge to offset actual expenses
(see below if you want more detail).
All – there are many ways to process this
data, so far what I’ve seen, the group has gotten access to
the data itself. Getting any contextual discussion, as
Dorothy has done, helps (at least my) understanding of the
underlying assumptions.
Some, like Glenn, may look for single
meeting mode with the most support, whereas others, like
Roger, may look at the lowest meeting number for which
cumulative support exceeds 50%. Ultimately, these are
perspective of the reader – the data is the data – so
providing the raw data and context is very useful.
It is my opinion that it is important that
we get the information in the context of willingness to pay in
amounts of $150 or more, at least for the near term. Having
an affirmative answer with a supposition that the collected
amount is $50-$100 generally doesn’t help in light of the fact
that $50 is what we pay face-to-face in the event of an
individual cancellation.
In some side discussions, it has become
clear to me that we need to be thinking about this as two
different modes. This is important, at least for the reason
that our superior rules limit what we can charge for.
- near-term,
which includes the expense of unwrapping a scheduled and
contracted face-to-face venue. (a last minute cancellation
can range from $250k to $700k – which, with our typical
600-700 attendee number is $360 to $1000 expense per head –
earlier cancellations would start more around $115k, which
is more like $170 per head, but never $100 or less).
- long-term,
which would be planned from the start as a virtual meeting –
these would be directly related to (only) virtual meeting
expenses.
Based on our ad hoc meeting yesterday I
will be putting together information on several scenarios for
the finances of a reduced number of face-to-face meetings for
802 for the EC to review. I urge patience in this process.
-george
Hello
George,
The
WG11 Closing Plenary was held on Thursday, 2020-07-16 from
9-11AM Eastern.
We
conducted one straw poll related to the electronic
plenaries, results shown below.
During
the discussion, questions on the topics of incurred costs
for electronic plenaries, and the expected amount of the
registration fee were raised.
Costs
and fees in the range of $50 - $150 were estimated by some,
for teleconference facilities for example.
Also
discussed was the likelihood of the fee varying by session,
depending on venue cancellation fees.
One
member indicated that in the absence of a fee amount and the
rationale, the member had to vote no.
A
question was also raised relating to paying for ongoing
teleconference facilities.
I
am happy to poll the 802.11 membership on this and related
topics in the future and suggest that we also provide
data on the expected registration fee amount &
rationale.
Thanks,
Dorothy
========================
Are you
willing to pay a registration fee for participation in
electronic meetings held in place of plenary and interim
face-to-face meetings?
Yes = 159
No = 56
Abstain = 46
No Response
= 47
Chairs – with regards to the questions for
your groups, I suggest the following questions be asked. It
will help us to collate the results, and to focus the
responses. Please pay attention to the discrete choices
given, because free-form results could make understanding the
answers difficult.
Thank you,
-george
1. Given that IEEE 802 incurs significant
expenses cancelling (plenary) face-to-face meetings, it has
been suggested that a meeting fee might be charged for
attendance at electronic meetings substituting for those
face-to-face plenaries. What would you consider the highest
reasonable and fair registration fee range to be: (select one)
a. $800-$500
b. $500-$300
c. $150-$300
d. My employer/sponsor is unwilling
to pay meeting fees for electronic meetings.
2. Once government and company restrictions
have been lifted, what do you perceive as the reasonable
number of face to face meetings (plenaries and interims) per
year?
6 (pre-2020 amount, 3 plenaries, 3
interims):
(below, the division between plenaries and
interims is TBD)
4:
3:
< 3:
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical
Communications
george@cmephyconsulting.com
310-920-3860
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