| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Paul, Thanks for the notes from the meeting. Afterwards I was thinking whether we can categorize areas of Focus, which could be Areas for Improvement, or just Areas where we need to Maintain our good performance. Here are a few thoughts of Categories.
I am not sure if those are the right categories but it is a few thoughts from me. I think if we agree on Categories on where we want to either maintain or improve our performance, that would be helpful. Regards, Steve From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization. Dear 802 EC Members, Instead of waiting to publish more refined notes from our discussion this afternoon, I will share the list captured in its raw form below. Feel free to revise as appropriate.
Thank you for your time and contributions. Next meeting is scheduled for 1-2pm ET Tuesday 19 January 2021. Have a great holiday season all. Regards, --Paul 1.Specify what problem(s) we are trying to solve: discuss
and enumerate 1.3 time/year PAR submission limitation vs value of review 2.Identify the benefit/services 802 provides 3.What service does the 802 EC provide and what is the
cost of providing it? 4.PAR review is valuable, 3 times per year is too infrequent,
6 times per year is better 5.802 EC should provide more technical oversight or coordination
between WGs&TAGs, draft PAR review provides this to a degree, this is one of the benefits the 802 EC provides, perhaps we should formalize technical coordination?, e.g., IETF example,
6.Potential Values: competent technical review, training
for new groups, ensure process is followed to avoid appeals/delays, what we do should be closely aligned to the SASB calendar, e.g., NesCom and RevCom deadlines,
7.Efficiency gains wrt rules, e.g., need for face to
face mtg requirements, registration rqmts, gaining voting membership, look for a shift from FtF meetings to online meetings, perhaps FtF meeting become more social than necessary to complete work 8.Support technical coherence/coordination. Comparing
to other societies, 802 provides value as a family 9.Need to be able to initiate and complete a stds project
within a 2.5 year time frame, because it is essential to the success of the std, allow participants to gain membership at electronic meetings, permit more frequent meetings to gain membership 10.There is redundancy in the above list. 802 has outside
of the formulating group reviewers, this provided better review, built in set of naïve readers. A new project brings in new participants that want to make quick progress, but the 802 EC has a broader, long range perspective that helps fit the process better.
Quality – what we have is a loose confederation that enables us to form systems of value over time, e.g., operational technology networks/factory automation is occurring, going towards 802 wired/wireless/TSN technologies. 11. We discussed cost/benefit analysis, but we now have monthly EC meetings which has raised the cost of EC participation. We talk about the value of 802, 802 has become
the General Motors of networking, which brings significant brand value to networking. Perhaps we need to split the larger WGs into smaller WGs?
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 |