Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

All,

 

                Interesting discussion.  Maybe Paul’s Ad Hoc is an interesting place to talk about long-term plans (after all travel restrictions are removed).  Not sure if that is long-term or very long-term.  J

 

                I understand the benefits of face-to-face meetings and how they are run.  I am getting a good feeling about the benefits and disadvantages of electronic meetings (do not need to travel, lower cost, but poorer interaction, etc.).  I do not have an understanding of the benefits and costs of a hybrid meeting.  Maybe that can be discussed on one of Paul’s Ad Hoc meetings.

 

                My current understanding is in the short term we will have electronic meetings.  Then when enough restrictions are raised and we have a hotel contract we need to honor we will start up face-to-face meetings (not sure when that will be).  Then we could plan for some combination of face-to-face meetings and electronic meetings, starting out in the future when we do not have hotel contracts.  Maybe we want to set up hotel contracts for all three plenaries a year, or maybe we only want set up hotel contract for some of them.  This is clearly not an urgent issue, but something to think about.  Another option is to have the plenary meetings face-to-face and leave it up to the working groups what they do for their interims. (I personally think that approach makes sense).

 

                That may have been more than 2 cents.  Look forward to a discussion on one of the future calls on this topic.

 

Regards,

Steve

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of George Zimmerman
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 12:35 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

Thank you, andrew – I was puzzling over the link this weekend. 

I’m not sure I agree on the ‘power imbalance’.  I do agree, however, that fairness and power balance are paramount.

 

It seems to me that true power lies with a vote in a consensus process, and to that extent a hybrid meeting may easily be constructed so that all may vote fairly.  Where the disparities arise are in the abilities to participate and enter a discussion.  That seems to be a matter of the tool and the chair’s administration.  If we solve the ability for online (but not present) parties to participate evenly in a discussion, then a hybrid discussion is, it seems, a simple extension of those rules – with the chair moderating that all parties get the same chance at participating.

 

If only a small minority are not present, then, I would submit, a hybrid meeting may have an imbalance, but then, I would also submit that it has little value.  It only has value when a significant minority or a majority are online rather than present.  I might suggest that somewhere about 25% or less online  makes the online part of a hybrid approach problematic, and 75% online make the in-person part problematic – but I think many meetings will have something in the middle sooner rather than later.

 

I believe that I have already observed our progress suffering from lack of face to face meetings for consensus building.  Much of this has to do with personal contact which is lacking.   This personal contact is part and parcel of human ‘empathy-building’ and, IMHO, is a big part of getting to consensus. 

 

This brings me to the somewhat less tractable problem are the ‘outside of the meeting room’ discussions.   These are often, in my experience, essential for building consensus and understanding, and have been most difficult to replicate in the non-face-to-face environment.  I have experienced, and had several colleagues remark similarly, that the offline interaction is a primary reason for needing face-to-face meetings. No tool would ever fully substitute the offline, non-meeting-room contact, but – is this a “power imbalance”? 

 

One could argue that the contact takes a different form for online attendees.  Most of us have called colleagues to discuss our views and hear their views on issues we are trying to find consensus on.  The online attendees have the option of private phone, video conference, or email conversations as well. Here the in-person attendees are left out, but no decisions are made. Even if people are not face-to-face, we can’t quite ban online attendees from getting together for lunch.  I’m concerned about how such gatherings relate to anti-trust, and we must all be careful, but as long as we keep our decisions in the meeting room and our eyes on the ‘appropriate vs. inappropriate topics’ that we review during a meeting (understanding those apply outside the room too) then I would think we can navigate that as well.  Learning to navigate the ‘online attendee, outside of the meeting’ contact, I think, is the key piece needed – whether meetings are hybrid, online, or in-person (with the contact being between sessions) – this will improve our consensus building.

 

-george

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles)
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:31 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

G’day all

 

Apologies, I have no idea how the link below sneaked into my e-mail. It was supposed to say (without the link)

 

We should, of course, explore all options for alternatives to F2F meetings, particularly as I suspect they will not be practical for most of this year (at least).

 

However, I very much doubt that hybrid meetings are a viable solution. They introduce a power imbalance (between those at the meeting and those not) that cannot be overcome by any tools I know of.

 

I note that we are still struggling to make on-line meetings work well. Why do we think that it is possible to make hybrid meetings, which are so much more difficult, work well?

 

I suggest we focus on making on-line meetings the best we possibly can. We may even discover that F2F meetings are not as necessary as we currently believe.

 

Andrew

 

From: Andrew Myles (amyles)
Sent: Monday, 8 February 2021 9:44 AM
To: 'jdambrosia@GMAIL.COM' <jdambrosia@GMAIL.COM>; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

G’day all

 

We should of course explore all options for alternatives to F2F meetings, particularly as I suspect they will not be practical for most of this year (at least).

 

However, I very doubt that hybrid meetings are a viable solution. They introduce a power imbalance (between those at the meeting and those not) https://wiki.cisco.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=642591637 that cannot be overcome by any tools I know of.

 

I note that we are still struggling to make on-line meetings work. Why do we think that it is possible to make hybrid meetings, which are so much more difficult, work well?

 

I suggest we focus on making on-line meetings the best we possibly can. We may even discover that F2F meetings are not as necessary as we currently believe (or hope)

 

Andrew

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of John D'Ambrosia
Sent: Saturday, 6 February 2021 11:32 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

All,

I see this matter as very important for us to start thinking about now.

 

There has been a lot of debate about when 802 will get back to being able to meet F2F.  It is unclear to me what the 802 EC approved criteria is on this matter, though some may have their opinions.  It is unclear to me, however that all individuals wishing to return to F2F meeting will be able to at the same time, due to country (departing / arriving) travel restrictions, or company travel / budget restrictions. 

 

Therefore, in order to ensure an open process, my own personal belief is we need to be prepared for hybrid meetings.  This thread talks about the tools.  Fine that is part of the equation.

 

However, we also need to understand cost issues – will the network resources we provide at our meetings be able to support this?  Will we need more BW in/ out of the meeting given the multiple meetings that occur.  What rule modifications do we need to consider?

 

Personally, I see this as a bigger immediate issue that the current restructuring ad hoc, as we need to be prepared for our current structure to support what I foresee as being inevitable.

 

My $0.02.

 

John

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of paul.nikolich
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 8:52 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

Dear EC, 

See the below status update from Erin.  Regards,

 --Paul

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Erin Spiewak <e.spiewak@ieee.org>

Date: 2/5/21 18:56 (GMT-05:00)

To: "paul.nikolich" <paul.nikolich@att.net>

Subject: Re: Fw: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

Hi Paul,

 

The SA Central Services team, led by Mary Lynne, is working in conjunction with MCE on evaluating tools to be used for virtual/hybrid meetings.  The prime focus of SA has been virtual tools (assessing different suppliers for webinars, workshops, and live/pre-recorded exhibitor booth sessions, etc).  SA is awaiting further info from MCE regarding the hybrid platform/supplier specifics and will then evaluate.  I will keep you updated as we gain information. 

Also, you may be aware of this already, MCE has some tips and considerations when the time comes to consider Hybrid, which can be found here.  

 

Have a nice weekend,
Erin

 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:48 PM paul.nikolich <paul.nikolich@att.net> wrote:

OK, thank you for the update.

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Erin Spiewak <e.spiewak@ieee.org>

Date: 2/4/21 19:34 (GMT-05:00)

To: Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@att.net>

Subject: Re: Fw: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

Hi Paul,


I just subscribed to the 802 EC reflector through Listserv, so I should be good to go moving forward.   

 

Regarding the Hybrid meetings, I will follow up tomorrow as I am just waiting for some additional information from Mary Lynne's team who is looking into this.


Thank you,
Erin

 

 

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:00 PM Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@att.net> wrote:

Erin,

 

I think you are on the 802 EC reflector, but just in case you aren't please respond to the below request for a status update.  We need to get you on the 802 EC reflector if you aren't on it, please let me know.

 

Thank you,

 

--Paul

 

------ Forwarded Message ------

From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@att.net>

Sent: 2/3/2021 12:30:54 PM

Subject: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

Dear Erin,

 

At the December 802/SA task force meeting you took the action to ask Adam Newman if the SA can support hybrid meetings for the 802 LMSC.  Please provide an update on the status of that discussion.

 

Thank you and regards,

 

--Paul

 

 

c.    hybrid meetings – no plans to support from the SA,
Erin Action Item – will ask Adam Newman if this is something that can be supported?
-- should begin investigation immediately
-- plenary’s have professional audio support
-- need to keep in mind, we need to support many simultaneous meetings, this could become prohibitively expensive
-- things have changed this year, hybrid capabilities have improved a lot recently, we need to kick off a study
-- hybrid meetings are a reality we need to pay attention to.  A list of requirements should be developed – what are we looking for?
-- we need to understand the capabilities of hybrid meeting platforms, we need to kick off an examination of hybrid meeting requirements and viability.

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


 

--

Erin Morales 

Director, Operational Program Management

Office +1 732-465-7806 |  standards.ieee.org

Cell +1 732-850-6410 

 Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender.  

 Image removed by sender. 


 

--

Erin Morales 

Director, Operational Program Management

Office +1 732-465-7806 |  standards.ieee.org

Cell +1 732-850-6410 

 Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender.  

 Image removed by sender. 

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