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

Andrew

You and I have very different opinions on this matter – so let me respond to the various statements you have made –

 

1.       To Ben –

We could have introduced hybrid attendance pre- COVID. If we had done so, we probably would have accepted that remote attendance is not as good as in-person attendance for a variety of reasons, but we would have made it the “choice” of the remote attendee to have a lesser experience (we probably would have arranged the participation of remote attendees to occur in a way that did not diminish the in-person experience).   In case you forgot – we had begun to look into this sometime ago – and at that time it was cost prohibitive.  COVID has been a driving force in making many tools better and driving innovation, so that the world could continue with some sense of normalcy.  (I will be the first to admit – our lives are not in the same – and this new normalcy is challenging.  However, we seem to be continuing to make).  So my response to you on this matter is that things have radically changed with the tools and this can’t be discounted as we are faced with this issue again.

 

  1. You stated – “Given that some/many IEEE 802 stakeholders have no “choice” at this time, I assert that it is unreasonable to introduce hybrid meetings at this time because it introduces an unfair power/influence imbalance. I would prefer to maintain fairness for all  rather than access the benefits of in-person meetings.”  However in your email to me you then stated a super majority.  Well – do you mean 2/3? ¾? 4/5?    This would still mean that you recognize that some individuals would not be able to participate.  So not sure how you are asserting that this is fairness.  By this reasoning it is then fair to not let some individuals participate in any fashion whatsoever, even though it could be a matter of not having a “choice”.  I assert your proposal is more unfair that the introduction of hybrid meetings.
  2. You stated – “PS I have less sympathy for companies that ban travel for budgetary reasons than those that ban travel for health reasons. I suspect there are companies in both camps, but health seems to be the main concern of many.” I really disagree with this statement. Companies, just like individuals, will be facing very challenging times in the coming year.  As we know many companies pay for individuals to come and volunteer at our meetings.  If these companies do not survive we could begin to lose members who don’t have anyone to pay for their travel costs or get jobs in areas that take them away from this work.  So we need to recognize long term that these companies survival has an impact on us.  So I do have sympathy for these companies.
  3. You stated – “The COVID situation is a golden opportunity to test the limits of what we can do remotely, finding new ways to make IEEE 802 standards development fair & effective … and yet accessible globally.”  I think what you are proposing is the opposite of this.

 

In genera my impression of many is that there will be a binary moment where things go back to “the way they used to be.”  I don’t have this view and believe there will be a gradual return, but it is unclear to me we will ever get back fully.  Furthermore, the world is figuring out how to continue in this environment.  I believe in many instances we continue to progress the work.  It may be some time before the “quality” of the standards being developed now are fully understood.  However, I am seeing some great efforts exerted by many of the volunteers in my 2 task forces and study groups, and believe we are maintaining that.  Please don’t take that comment out of context as a knock on any other groups.  I am only commenting on those efforts I am directly involved with.

 

Regards

 

John

 

 

 

 

From: Andrew Myles (amyles) <amyles@cisco.com>
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:41 PM
To: jdambrosia@GMAIL.COM; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

G’day John

 

You noted, “You seem to be arguing that no F2F meetings should be held until everyone can attend in person”

 

Very close! 😊 I would slightly modify your summary to say no IEEE 802 F2F meetings should be held until is reasonably practical for a super majority of typical attendees from around the globe to attend F2F at the chosen location in a manner that is safe to both them and the wider community.  That is a pretty high bar!

 

The COVID situation is a golden opportunity to test the limits of what we can do remotely, finding new ways to make IEEE 802 standards development fair & effective … and yet accessible globally.

 

Andrew

 

PS I have less sympathy for companies that ban travel for budgetary reasons than those that ban travel for health reasons. I suspect there are companies in both camps, but health seems to be the main concern of many.

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of John D'Ambrosia
Sent: Tuesday, 9 February 2021 1:33 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

Andrew

I find your reasoning backwards – “Given that some/many IEEE 802 stakeholders have no “choice” at this time, I assert that it is unreasonable to introduce hybrid meetings at this time because it introduces an unfair power/influence imbalance. I would prefer to maintain fairness for all  rather than access the benefits of in-person meetings.”

 

You seem to be arguing that no F2F meetings should be held until everyone can attend in person, as it would introduce an unfair power / influence imbalance.  It seems you missed my point totally.

 

If the EC decides to hold meetings where 100% of the people can not attend in person, then there is a totally “unfair power / influence imbalance” as individuals not present can not participate in the decision making process.  This is more unfair than the hybrid infrastructure I suggested which sough to address this imbalance.

 

So what do you suggest?

We should only worry about individuals who can not attend due to country government restrictions?  If their company doesn’t want to support their travel – then this is their problem?  Given the realities of today – I disagree with that.

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles)
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 7:55 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

G’day Ben

 

I agree with most of your comments. However, I have an issue related to the concept of “choice”.

 

We could have introduced hybrid attendance pre- COVID. If we had done so, we probably would have accepted that remote attendance is not as good as in-person attendance for a variety of reasons, but we would have made it the “choice” of the remote attendee to have a lesser experience (we probably would have arranged the participation of remote attendees to occur in a way that did not diminish the in-person experience).

 

However, we are now in the COVID-era and we need to consider hybrid attendance in that context. At this time, the reality is that many IEEE 802 stakeholder have no “choice” for various reasons:

  • Their country will not let them travel
  • Their company will not let them travel
  • It is inadvisable to travel because they do not have access to an (effective) vaccine
  • It is inadvisable to travel because their family/colleagues do not have access to an (effective) vaccine
    • I am assuming a vaccine does stop one being a carrier, which is the current thinking
  • They would need to quarantine on return to their home
  • ….

 

Given that some/many IEEE 802 stakeholders have no “choice” at this time, I assert that it is unreasonable to introduce hybrid meetings at this time because it introduces an unfair power/influence imbalance. I would prefer to maintain fairness for all  rather than access the benefits of in-person meetings.

 

Of course, it is unreasonable to ban hybrid meetings forever because only a few stakeholders can’t reasonably attend in-person meetings. However, I would suggest we only introduce hybrid meetings when the vast majority of stakeholders (say 95%+) have a genuine “choice”.

 

Andrew

 

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of Benjamin A. Rolfe
Sent: Tuesday, 9 February 2021 11:20 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request

 

I have to agree with John that this is an important issue and one we should begin considering now. There are a number of complexities involved and requires careful consideration moving forward.  

 

There will be additional cost.  I would expect that most of the venues we use can provide the requires bandwidth.  The network services provider that we’ve been using has experience with IETF who has held hybrid meetings for some time.  I’m sure they can give us hard numbers from experience both in terms of bits and money.  I suggest we ask them.

 

I acknowledge Andrew’s concern about unequal participation.  Face to face is better.  Those attending remotely will be at a deficit. I do not believe we can fully mitigate this difference. Nos should we compromise the face to face experience and advantages to try.  It is part of an attendee’s decision making process: they must consider the costs and benefits.  I believe our responsibility as an organization is to provide information so attendees can make an informed choice, not make that choice on their behalf.   Again I think we can look to IETF for some relevant experience. While our organization is very different than IETF we do have many members who have done both, so can share useful experiences.

 

To John’s point regarding the restructuring ad-hoc:  I suggest that this is a key part of that discussion. I agree it is a high priority.  I’d put it at the same priority as updating our process to improve efficiency, as we’ve been discussing in the ad-hoc.  I may be agreeing with John that major restructuring is not required to address hybrid meetings as well as achieve improvements, though part of the “structure” of 802 has been the face to face only meetings, so changing this is in deed a structural change IMO.   My view of “restructuring” may be different from what others think.

 

My $0.02 FWIW.

Ben

 

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> On Behalf Of John D'Ambrosia
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 4:32 AM
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

 

Image removed by sender. Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

 

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