| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
G'day James,
I am not sure I agree that "safe" is always an absolute. Many (on-line) dictionary definitions include the concept of "not likely to cause or lead to harm or injury" within the scope of their definitions of "safe". Regardless, I agree that what we are really talking about is the level of “acceptable risk”. We could attempt to develop a numerical definition of “acceptable risk” (and risk) to drive any decisions. Indeed, it might be a natural thing to attempt for a bunch of standards folk/engineers.
However, I am certain that we are not sufficiently skilled in health matter to do so. Instead, I would suggest that we rely on the health experts. Currently, domestic and international travel is mostly banned and/or highly restricted by governments in most countries and by many of our employers, based on advice from health experts. This suggests, by proxy, that there is currently an “unacceptable risk” (both to us and the wider community) associated with travel, particularly travel where there are feasible (albeit no always ideal) alternatives.
Of course, any evaluation of risk will change over time. The introduction of vaccines will reduce the risk, but only over time as vaccines are distributed globally. Wide distribution is not expected until about mid-2021. Resurgences in some countries, such as the very serious resurgence in the US, will increase the risk. IEEE 802 EC should wait as long as possible before making any decisions to cancel meetings, with the primary determinant of the decision point being the financial impact to the IEEE 802 of further delay
Andrew
BTW The article you referenced was very interesting, and highlights the reasons why, given the rising infection and positivity rates (both leading indicators), a meeting in Florida now would obviously be a very bad idea. A scary quote from the article follows:
The death rate "is still higher than many infectious diseases, including the flu," Horwitz says. And those who recover can suffer complications for months or even longer. "It still has the potential to be very harmful in terms of long-term consequences for many people."
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Thursday, 19 November 2020 6:25 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 2020 Nov Plenary - Straw Poll request for Closing sessions.
Andrew
Well, I can easily answer your points.
> * Is it safe for the vast majority of members to travel to the
F2F meeting?
> * Is it safe for members to participate in a F2F meeting?
It never was safe to travel to or participate in a F2F meeting.
It is not now safe to travel to or participate in a F2F meeting.
It never will be safe to travel to or participate in a F2F meeting.
The word safe is an absolute, i.e., (from Merriam-Webster online)
"1 free from harm or risk : unhurt
2a : secure from threat of danger, harm, or loss"
Here is a partial list of the risks of attending a F2F meeting:
1) Traffic accident to/from the airport either at home or in the destination city.
2) Plane crash due to mechanical failure, weather or human action
3) Natural disaster (e.g., earthquake, storms) that causes damage to the buildings resulting in harm to any one of the individuals
4) Slipping and falling, e.g., in the tub at the hotel, by the pool, failing to see a steop
5) Assault or murder of an attendee in the destination city
There is always risk in leaving your house. There is also risk in staying in your house.
Perhaps you mean that the risk is below a certain level. If so, then we would need to define what is an "acceptable risk".
- Are we worried only about the risk of death?
- If it includes the risk of injury, what level of injury is sufficient to be included (i.e., I assume we would exclude paper cuts and catching the common cold from our consideration).
- How are we going to measure the risk? Which source do we use for the data?
- Do we need to hire an actuary to estimate the risk?
- If the risk rises above the pre-defined level, do we cancel a meeting?
For example, in January 2020, we had a Wireless Interim meeting in Irving, CA. At that time, the US was experiencing a worse than normal flu epidemic, resulting is double to triple the number of average annual deaths. In addition, the flu shot for that year was mostly ineffective, which may have beeny part of the reason for the worse than usual flu season. Although the US only estimates flu infections rather than doing extensive testing of the population, it was likely higher than an average year as well.
Should we have cancelled that meeting in December of 2019 due to the increased risk above the average risk to the health of our attendees?
How should we measure this risk?
If you would like to provide a definition of how we should numerically measure risk, then we can discuss what we might do about it.
James Gilb
PS:
You mentioned "given the high death rate from COVID in the US and recent resurgence of COVID in the US"
Worldometer puts the US at 11 in deaths/ 1M population (768), most of which happened in the New York City area in April-May time frame. The 7 day moving average for the US shows only a slight increase (~700 to
~1200) in daily deaths in the US over the past month (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/). Overall, deaths vs. detected infections has been falling. This is consistent with studies from October 2020
Orlando seems like a good bet. Florida has been fully open since the September 25, 2020 (you can even go to Disney World, but there they will require you to wear a face covering). The number of daily deaths in Florida peaked in August and has been decreasing steadily since then.
Cases have risen some, but are far less than what they were in the July time frame.
Still, it seems prudent to wait until at least March. In the US, we should have 10-20 million of the most vulnerable and their care workers vaccinated by the end of the year. (at 99.4% recovery for people over 70, the at risk population is likely less than 3-4 million of our 350 million population). This should, thankfully, cause the number of daily deaths to decrease dramatically starting in January.
Essentially all of the US should have access to a vaccine by the end of March or April, 2021.
But, we will see. As Yogi Berra said "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
On 11/16/20 4:16 PM, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
> G’day all
>
> I would encourage the EC to consider the views of the membership as represented by the results of various straw polls. The problem will be that will be very difficult to interpret the straw poll results because they attempt to ask a simple question to explore a complex, multi-dimensional issue for which there is no simple answer. The discussions about the last set of straw polls just highlighted the difficulty of agreeing on how to interpret the results.
>
> Fortunately, there is a well-known and well-trodden path to deal with complex, multi-dimensional questions in a practical manner. The IEEE 802 EC should use their authority to make a well-considered decision that is made in the best interests of their stakeholders, taking into account the all the relevant criteria and evidence (including the results of any straw polls).
>
> The primary criteria for any decision needs to be safety:
>
> * Is it safe for the vast majority of members to travel to the F2F meeting?
> * Is it safe for members to participate in a F2F meeting?
> * …
>
> Safety during travel is mostly outside the control of the IEEE 802. It is currently unsafe to travel to all the planned F2F meeting locations in 2021; any travel in or to the US and Spain is currently very unsafe. Safety at a meeting is only within the control of the IEEE 802 in so far as they can control safety within the meeting rooms. IEEE 802 cannot control safety outside the meeting rooms. In my view, there is no prospect of a holding a safe meeting almost anywhere in the world (except maybe somewhere like New Zealand, and even they had a small outbreak in the last few days) until a vaccine is available and widely distributed. At the very least, any vaccine needs to be available to the vast majority of attendees to avoid disenfranchising our members. This is unlikely until at least the middle of 2021.
>
> A secondary criteria for any decision needs to be practicality:
>
> * Are employers allowing/funding travel?
> * Are governments allowing travel to/from/within countries?
> * Can onerous conditions such as quarantine be avoided?
> * …
>
> It needs to be practical for the vast majority of members to attend to avoid unreasonably disenfranchising more than just a few members. At this point, the answers to these questions are mostly “no”, highlighting the impracticality of any travel at this point of time. The answers will change in the future, but the timing of any such change is currently speculation.
>
> Earlier in this thread it was asserted by Ben that debating “opinions as to what is "safe" is definitely NOT appropriate for this forum”. In my opinion safety is the first and most important criteria that the EC needs to consider. I understand that the EC may not want to take on that responsibility, in which case they should defer to independent and qualified experts. I doubt that we will find many such experts that believe it is safe or reasonable today to bring 450+ people from around the world to a F2F meeting so that we can develop 802 standards, particularly when we have the alternative of virtual meetings.
>
> Andrew
>
> BTW The travel advice from US State Dept is currently level 3 (dark yellow - reconsider travel) or level 4 (red - don’t travel) for most of the world; level 2 (yellow - take precautions) for New Zealand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Antarctica, parts of Mexico and Mongolia. Anyone for a F2F meeting in Mongolia?
> [cid:image001.jpg@01D6BCD3.17B24A10]
> PS The advice from most other countries wrt travel to US is “don’t”,
> which is not surprising given the high death rate from COVID in the US
> and recent resurgence of COVID in the US
>
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2020 9:05 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] 2020 Nov Plenary - Straw Poll request for Closing sessions.
>
> Roger-
>
> On Nov 16, 2020, at 1:47 PMPST, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org<mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org>> wrote:
>
> In the survey run in June, the key questions, derived from from the earlier 802.3 survey, were:
>
> In your opinion, when is the earliest you will be likely to attend an IEEE 802 meeting in Asia?
> In your opinion, when is the earliest you will be likely to attend an IEEE 802 meeting in Europe?
> In your opinion, when is the earliest you will be likely to attend an IEEE 802 meeting in North America?
>
> I consider use of the term "likely" to be equivalent to my question.
> OTOH, given the conversation, I thought it best to be as fully explicit as we can be.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger
> On Nov 16, 2020, 2:30 PM -0700, Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org<mailto:thompson@ieee.org>>, wrote:
> Colleagues-
>
> I strongly suggest that both the discussion and any straw polls be limited to what we care about.
>
> That is: How many participants (obviously other than first timers who we have no way of surveying) would show up for a meeting.
> Thus, that is the question we should ask.
> (Assuming that the current answer is no and that when you indicate a
> date, you will show up "as normal" for meetings after that point.)
>
> I would formulate the question as:
> For which of the following dates do you guess at this point you will resume your normal attendance at face-to-face 802 meetings
> taking into consideration all of the relevant factors such as:
> - Personal considerations about travel & event attendance during the Covid pandemic.
> - Family considerations about travel & event attendance during the Covid pandemic.
> - Government considerations about border crossings and/or event attendance during the Covid pandemic.
> - Employer/sponsor policy regarding travel & event attendance during the Covid pandemic.
> - Revised employer/sponsor financial policy regarding travel & event attendance.
> Please assume that remote participation (e.g. WebEx, Zoom) would NOT be offered at face-to-face 802 meetings.
> [List of dates goes here]
>
> I think that covers it but I'm open to tweaking.
>
> Geoff Thompson
>
> On Nov 16, 2020, at 12:43 PMPST, Benjamin A. Rolfe <ben@BLINDCREEK.COM<mailto:ben@BLINDCREEK.COM>> wrote:
>
> I think it is appropriate for a member to speak for themselves regarding an opinion. It is not OK to declare that opinion as the opinion of others.
> The wording of the poll does not allow a valid conclusion as to why any person answered the way they answered. The poll asked when we "expect" a meeting, not when we would be comfortable, able, or willing. Concluding comfortable, able, or willing from the poll results is not valid. Basing a decision on an invalid conclusion is unwise.
> I suggest if we want to know what members are comfortable with, we ask them directly.
> Debating opinions as to what is "safe" is definitely NOT appropriate for this forum, and I formally object to any assertion as to what is safe or not safe.
> Thank you very much.
> Ben
> On 11/15/2020 1:34 PM, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
> G'day James
>
> The straw poll results suggest most people (indeed, a super majority of those that expressed and opinion) are uncomfortable with holding any IEEE 802 meetings until at least September 2021, based on what they know (or believe they know) today. IEEE 802 need to recognise this perspective and respect it regardless of personal opinions, unless there is compelling contrary evidence (there isn’t!).
>
> If IEEE 802 EC was making a decision today about the meetings in Mar 2021 and Jul 2021, the only possible justifiable decision would be to cancel them. However, such a decision does not need to be made today. I understand that a decision on the Mar 2021 meeting can be delayed until Dec 2020 or even Jan 2021. The situation may have changed for the better at that time, or for the worse. I suspect that the US will be much worse (unless something is done in the US very soon) and other countries (particularly in Asia) will be much better. We will only know at the time.
>
> That said, I need to respond to your statement that "For 99.9+% of the people in the world, the current health risk from contracting COVID-19 is substantially similar to contracting the flu.". I start by noting I am not health expert. However, all the evidence available to me suggests you are very far from the mark.
>
> A very quick google search highlights a large number of reputable sources that suggest the health risk from contracting COVID-19 is substantially greater than contracting the flu for a group much larger than 0.1%, and the effects are often more serious. For example:
> • From John Hopkins (20 Oct 2020) - https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/no-covid-19-is-not-the-flu.html
> • Andrew Pekosz, PhD, says it can be hard to differentiate the two based on symptoms alone. But large numbers of susceptible people and increased rates of severe disease and death set COVID-19 apart from seasonal influenza
> • From Mayo Clinic (7 Oct 2020) - https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-vs-flu/art-20490339
> • COVID-19 symptoms can sometimes persist for months. The virus can damage the lungs, heart and brain, which increases the risk of long-term health problems
> • From Nature (14 Sept 2020) - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6
> • People with more severe infections might experience long-term damage not just in their lungs, but in their heart, immune system, brain and elsewhere. Evidence from previous coronavirus outbreaks, especially the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic, suggests that these effects can last for years
> • .And although in some cases the most severe infections also cause
> the worst long-term impacts, even mild cases can have life-changing
> effects — notably a lingering malaise similar to chronic fatigue
> syndrome
>
> Do you have any references supporting your assertion?
>
> You also noted that “An individual might rationally conclude that it is safer for them to fly now, due to the increased attention on cleaning, physical separation, etc.“. The extreme measures to make flying safer are obviously good. However, the safety of flying is now being questioned, despite early claims that it was very safe. Have a look athttps://www.dw.com/en/how-safe-is-air-travel-during-covid-19/a-55435284 and the linked study.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James P. K. Gilb <Gilb_IEEE@yahoo.com><mailto:Gilb_IEEE@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 15 November 2020 3:25 PM
> To: Andrew Myles (amyles) <amyles@cisco.com><mailto:amyles@cisco.com>; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] 2020 Nov Plenary - Straw Poll request for Closing sessions.
>
> Andrew
>
> I have to take exception with one or your points:
> * Sitting on a plane or in an airport for X hours can’t be safe
> in the middle of a pandemic!
>
> Setting aside the obvious point that nothing is "safe", the question really should be:
>
> Is it noticeably more of a risk to sit on a plane or in an airport now than in the past, say last year?
>
> For 2-3 of our meetings we travel during the annual global pandemic known as the flu season.
>
> For 99.9+% of the people in the world, the current health risk from contracting COVID-19 is substantially similar to contracting the flu.
>
> Each person should make the rational analysis of their health risk and act accordingly. For me, like 99.9+% of the people in the world, the rational analysis says that the risk is not noticeably elevated.
>
> I am worried that statements like you made might cause people to irrationally (i.e., based on emotion, not facts) decide not to fly, adversely affecting the industry and the millions of people around the world who depend on it for their livelihood.
>
> I volunteered to fly for work twice in May of this year because I rationally evaluated the risk and determined that my health and that of my family was not at increased risk. I just bought round trip tickets for my daughter to fly back from college for Thanksgiving. I have volunteered to fly for another test for work at the end of this year.
> This is not theoretical for me.
>
> An individual might rationally conclude that it is safer for them to fly now, due to the increased attention on cleaning, physical separation, etc. My suspicion is that any change in risk (for the vast majority of people) is less than the annual variation of risk due to the flu.
>
> James Gilb
>
> PS: I am not going to bother with the standard disclaimers as I expect that this list is read by thinking people.
>
> On 11/11/20 9:28 PM, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
>> G’day George,
>>
>> I believe that the answers questions to the 802.11 WG and the 802.1
>> WG represent a great example of crowd sourcing. Now we just need to
>> work out what the results mean …
>>
>> IMHO, the results represent the perspective of those that expressed an opinion based on the information available at the time, weighted by personal bias. Factors people probably took into account include:
>>
>> * Safety of the destination
>> * Noting the US, Spain and Panama (802.11 WG planned meeting destinations) are all in the top 20 countries for deaths per population …
>> * … and are all are currently experiencing serious resurgences
>> * Safety of travel to the destination
>> * Sitting on a plane or in an airport for X hours can’t be safe in the middle of a pandemic!
>> * Practicality of travel to the destination
>> * In my case, I am not legally allowed to leave Australia …
>> * … and even if I was allowed to do so, I would be required to quarantine in a hotel for 2 weeks on return if I travelled to US, Spain or Panama (all classed as dangerous destinations)
>> * Many companies have banned travel to end of 1Q21 or 1Q22 already
>> * Safety of a large meeting
>> * This can be managed to some degree, noting the excellent plans of the venue in Denver …
>> * … but many are nervous
>> * Availability of a vaccine
>> * This is looking more positive …
>> * … but vaccines are unlikely to be widely available/distributed globally until at least the middle of next year
>> * Fairness of holding a meeting to which a significant proportion of stakeholders can’t attend
>> * The IEEE-SA mantra of openness is contrary to the idea of holding meetings to which many can’t reasonably attend
>> * Availability of alternatives
>> * Teleconferences have worked reasonably well …
>> * … although a recognition the world is not all in ET would be nice
>> * Cost to attend
>> * Travel budgets in many companies are gone for the moment!
>> * …
>> I suspect that most people did not take into account the cost to the IEEE 802 of cancelling meeting on the basis there is not a good understanding of those costs by many, and most are more concerned about safety and personal practical considerations anyway. However, if they did take the IEEE 802 costs into account then it would most likely cause their estimate to be earlier than if they just took other factors into account. For the purposes of interpreting the results of the polls, I suggest we assume they are not affected by the cost to IEEE 802 of cancelling meetings.
>>
>> The results from 802.1 WG and 802.11 therefore are a reasonable crowd sourced evaluations of the earliest people believe a meeting should be held, ignoring the cost to the IEEE 802 of cancelling meetings. Another interpretation is that it is the earliest they believe it is sensible for a reasonable person to organise a meeting in the current environment, knowing what we know today!
>>
>> The results of the two polls in 802.1 WG and the one poll in the 802.11 WG are remarkably similar. They show:
>>
>> * About 50% believe a meeting is reasonable in July 2021 or later
>> * Just less than 75% believe a meeting is reasonable in Sept 2021 or later
>> * More than 75% believe a meeting is reasonable in Nov 2021 or later
>>
>> They also show that 802.11 WG folk are more gung ho that 802.1 WG
>> folk! 😊
>> [cid:image003.png@01D6B906.AA2E1F20<unsafe:about:blank>]
>>
>> So based on what we know today, we should probably not even think about holding a meeting until about Nov 2021 (I am assuming we need some form of consensus to hold a meeting). However, we also do not need to make a decision today. We only need to make a decision at points in time where IEEE 802 is exposed to significant additional costs.
>>
>> This suggests we should continue asking the WG participants questions
>> similar to those asked this week The answers will reflect the
>> knowledge and situation at the time and will provide the EC the best
>> information to make difficult decisions in the best interests of all
>> IEEE 802 member/participants. I am sure the EC will execute their
>> task with care and professionalism … with lots of help from the
>> “peanut gallery” 😉
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>> <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> >> On Behalf Of George Zimmerman
>> Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2020 3:03 AM
>> To:
>> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] 2020 Nov Plenary - Straw Poll request for Closing sessions.
>>
>> Andrew –
>> If the question were somewhat different, I would concur with you. However, the question is, perhaps, phrased as an ‘expectation’ asking the respondent to predict the future. Further, they are asked to predict not only for themselves, but for others in 802.
>>
>> If I were asked that question, while I have no explicit restrictions and would follow a set of protocols for safe travel, I would probably answer November 2021 – because of others. However, for myself, I would evaluate the situation at each meeting opportunity, as information becomes more available. We are in a time where information available is highly variable with regards to vaccines, outbreaks, and personal risk, so it is not unreasonable that others, including companies, will continually re-evaluate.
>>
>> As such, for 802, I would consider the cost of planning and pushing off meetings at a known decision date, likely just prior to opening registration or other time when the financial or logistic risk goes up significantly. I believe Jon is considering that, and I know I do as treasurer.
>>
>> The questions which have been asked, have been asked. This is useful, but (at least for me), I don’t believe actionable information at this time. It might be useful to be a little more precise in the future as to what we want to know.
>>
>> What I believe we really want to know is something like, “Based upon your affiliation’s and other restrictions, as well as your personal comfort level, when is the earliest you expect to be able to attend an 802.x face-to-face meeting”
>>
>> -george
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>> <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> <mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG%3cmailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV
>> .IEEE.ORG>>
>>> On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles)
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 5:24 PM
>> To:
>> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<
>> mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG%3cmailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.
>> IEEE.ORG>>
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] 2020 Nov Plenary - Straw Poll request for Closing sessions.
>>
>> G’day all
>>
>> If one considers 75% to be a reasonable measure of consensus then both the 802.1 WG and 802.11 WG polls suggest we should not plan another F2F until Nov 2021.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>> <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> <mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG%3cmailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV
>> .IEEE.ORG>>
>>> On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl
>> Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2020 8:25 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] 2020 Nov Plenary - Straw Poll request for Closing sessions.
>>
>> Thanks Glenn,
>> We need to capture the number of companies with the travel ban, Work from Home (WFH) only policies.
>> As we get through this hard period of time, we need to be careful and mindful of everyone's concerns and safety.
>> I will compile your results to a consolidated report for Friday.
>> I hope the other WGs will be able to conduct similar (if not the same polls).
>> Regards,
>> Jon
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Jon Rosdahl Engineer, Senior Staff
>> IEEE 802 Executive Secretary Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
>> office: 801-492-4023 10871 North 5750 West
>> cell: 801-376-6435 Highland, UT 84003
>>
>> A Job is only necessary to eat!
>> A Family is necessary to be happy!!
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:20 PM Glenn Parsons <glenn.parsons@ericsson.com<mailto:glenn.parsons@ericsson.com<mailto:glenn.parsons@ericsson.com%3cmailto:glenn.parsons@ericsson.com>>> wrote:
>> Jon,
>>
>> In 802.1 at our closing plenary today we asked your question at the end of the plenary. As we were already in overtime there were only 52 responses. We had about 90 at our peak.
>>
>> When do you expect the next in person 802.1 Session will be?
>> A.- March 2021 3 6%
>> B.- May 2021 7 13%
>> C.- July 2021 12 23%
>> D.- Sept 2021 11 21%
>> E.- November 2021 9 17%
>> F.- after 2021 7 13%
>> No Answer 3 6%
>>
>> As well, we also asked a modified version (as some members were not clear):
>>
>> When do you expect to next attend in person an 802.1 Session?
>> A.- March 2021 2 4%
>> B.- May 2021 8 15%
>> C.- July 2021 14 27%
>> D.- Sept 2021 9 17%
>> E.- November 2021 9 17%
>> F.- 2022 or later 7 13%
>> No Answer 3 6%
>>
>> As an aside, in addition to personal preference to not travel until there is a vaccine, several mentioned that their employers already had travel restrictions in place until the end of either Q1 or Q2 2021.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Glenn.
>>
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>> <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> <mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG%3cmailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV
>> .IEEE.ORG>>
>>> On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:47 AM
>> To:
>> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<
>> mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG%3cmailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.
>> IEEE.ORG>>
>> Subject: [802SEC] 2020 Nov Plenary - Straw Poll request for Closing sessions.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> During the 802.11 Closing Plenary, we held a straw poll and I would ask if you have time in your closing plenaries to ask the question " When do you expect the next in person 802.11 Session will be? " with the 6 options as noted below. Please send me the results:
>> The 802.11 results are noted below:
>> When do you expect the next in person 802.11 Session will be?
>> A.– March 2021 17/217 ( 8%)
>> B.- May 2021 14/217 ( 6%)
>> C. - July 2021 57/217 ( 26%)
>> D.- Sept 2021 29/217 ( 13%)
>> E.- November 2021 16/217 ( 7%)
>> F.- after 2021 25/217 ( 12%)
>> No Answer 59/217 ( 27%)
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jon
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Jon Rosdahl Engineer, Senior Staff
>> IEEE 802 Executive Secretary Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
>> office: 801-492-4023 10871 North 5750 West
>> cell: 801-376-6435 Highland, UT 84003
>>
>> A Job is only necessary to eat!
>> A Family is necessary to be happy!!
>> ________________________________
>>
>> 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<https://
>> listservieee.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<https://
>> listservieee.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<https://
>> listservieee.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<https://
>> listservieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1>
>>
>> ----------
>> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>
> ________________________________
> 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
>
> ----------
> 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.
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