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

Re: [802SEC] WG input requested for the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc

hi Andrew,

as i quickly mentioned on the call just now, had brought up your 3 questions in the .18 closing and so from a .18 perspective, keeping in mind a smaller group and more importantly, have had weekly calls all along even before covid; a few inputs. 

and Al had brought up to me a survey could work pretty well here, so do support that.   

enjoy the day,

jay

a)      What aspects of remote operation have worked during COVID?

i)       Highlight real examples

ii)     Identify why remote operation was successful in these cases

(1)   Smaller groups like .18 normally have calls and have been able to conduct business efficiently, and not much difference from pre-covid days.

(2)   For .18, we have had less conflicts that need to be worked out, therefore conference calls are easier in general.

(3)   New folks have come on board and seems easier to join in for what .18 does and how it operates with calls, list server emails, and all.

(a)   Also considering, they do not have the experience of in-person sessions to compare to.

(4)   For other folks, most already knew each other from (many) prior in-person sessions, so can operate well on conference calls.

 

b)      What aspects of remote operation have NOT worked during COVID?

i)        Nothing came up in the short time allowed, with focus on above.

 

c)      What could be done to turn any failures into successes?

i)       Nothing came up in the short time allowed, with focus on above.

 

d)     other inputs that came up, not fitting into above, so FYI:

i)       EC meetings have worked well.

ii)     Do other questions need to be asked, e.g. financial?

iii)   Is 6 in-person meetings a year really needed?

(1)   in other words, how many is needed to gain and maintain the personal connections and what is gained/needed by in-person sessions? 


From: Andrew Myles (amyles) <00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@listserv.ieee.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] WG input requested for the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc
To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>

G’day Jon

 

Thanks.

 

Yes, this was discussed during the first meeting of the ad hoc.

 

Andrew

 

From: Jon Rosdahl <jrosdahl@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 January 2022 10:29 AM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles) <amyles@cisco.com>
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] WG input requested for the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc

 

Hi Andrew,

At the 802 Wireless Electronic Interim Session Opening Meeting, I presented George Zimmerman's 802 ec-21-0237-00-00EC presentation on Future Meeting Observations:

 

It is a good Summary of what worked and what needed improvement during the Pandemic.

 

Something to add to your list of inputs.

FWIW,

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 Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:58 PM Andrew Myles (amyles) <00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

G’day IEEE 802 WG Chairs

 

The IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc has had some discussions about what has worked well and not so well in remote-only meetings over the last two years. We have also had some initial discussions about what could be done to improve the situation for remote-only meetings in the future. However, except for a few individuals (thank you!), it has been difficult to get much engagement. I suspect many people are just hoping remote-only meetings will not be needed in the future. That seems less likely as the current situation continues. ☹

 

In an attempt to attract broader engagement in this important issue, I would like to request that each IEEE 802 WG Chair highlights the existence of the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc at the upcoming interim WG sessions. More importantly, could you please request your WG membership to apply their minds to the following basic questions being addressed by the ad hoc? The questions could be answered separately in the context of existing and new projects:

  • What aspects of remote operation have worked during COVID?
    • Highlight real examples
    • Identify why remote operation was successful in these cases
  • What aspects of remote operation have NOT worked during COVID?
    • Highlight real examples
    • Identify why remote operation was NOT successful in these cases
  • What could be done to turn any failures into successes?
    • Describe some real turnaround examples (if any)
    • … or hypothesize about how this could be done

 

I would ask that anyone with thoughts they might like to share to do so with me (in any form to amyles@cisco.com) so that I can schedule the summarised thoughts for discussion in a future agenda of the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc.

 

Thank you in advance for your assistance. If anyone would like a slide for their WG agenda, I would be happy to send you one – just yell!

 

Andrew Myles

 

PS A summary of discussions so far in the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc is embedded below

 

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles)
Sent: Thursday, 2 December 2021 5:07 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Your Input needed by the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc

 

G’day all

 

Thank you to all those that have participated in this discussion.

 

The assertion was made that remote meetings make it difficult for new people to get involved in the existing activities. There was quite a lot of support for this position, although at least one counter example was provided by Clint Chaplin. Clint’s counter example may be an outlier because Clint has the sort of personality that allows him to overcome these sorts of barriers. Many people are not blessed with such bravery! 😉

 

My personal view is that it is almost always difficult for a new person to join an existing activity, whether meetings are held F2F or remotely. That said, it probably is easier when everyone is F2F because it is easier for the new person to identify and approach the existing leads for one on one introductions and discussions. it is also easier for the existing leads to spot and approach new participants for one on one introductions and discussions, usually after the new participant has established credibility via a valuable submission or an insightful comment/question.

 

However, I would like to challenge everyone to think beyond our preconceptions of the future that are extrapolated from experiences of the past. Imagine that we were forced to operate in remote mode forever (I hope this is not the case). What would you do to make it easier for new people to get involved in the existing activities?

 

Let me start off with some ideas. In my view, the fundamental problem with remote meetings (compared to F2F) is that it is more difficult to identify, contact and communicate with other stakeholders. In a F2F meeting, you can see the person in the meeting, trap the person in the coffee area (or by the bar) and speak to them personally. In  remote meetings, they are a name and affiliation that flies past, with no face and a disembowelled voice. In addition, there is no equivalent to trapping them in the coffee area or bar.

 

I suspect there are a whole range of things we could do to improve this situation:

  • Require video when someone is speaking or asking a question
    • A face is very helpful to make a connection
  • Require attendees to have a high bandwidth connection if they want to actively participate
    • Enables quality voice/video
  • Make it easier to obtain e-mail addresses (or other contact details) of attendees
    • I am sure there are privacy issues …
    • … but if you don’t want people working with you by contacting you, why are you attending a standards meeting?
  • Provide easy ways for groups of people to gather in private spaces or in public hangouts
    • This is what we do at F2F meetings
  • Record who votes for what
    • So I know who to talk to about various issues
    • This is something I can often see in a F2F meeting
  • … others?

 

Would anyone like to volunteer a submission of their suggestions/thoughts for discussion at a teleconference before Christmas?

 

Andrew

 

PS There is a similar set of issues that arise when existing and new participants start a new project in a remote only mode. In this case, there is even less sense of existing. Feel free to comment on this situation too.

 

 

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> On Behalf Of Clint Chaplin
Sent: Thursday, 2 December 2021 1:44 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Your Input needed by the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc

 

I can only offer up a counterexample here...

 

When I started in IEEE 802, I was attending 802.11i teleconferences; I had never attended an in-person meeting.  I was attending teleconferences for about four months before I was allowed to attend an in-person meeting by my company.  The teleconference participants accepted my input and took my input the same way as any other long term participant.

 

 I still remember attending my first in-person meeting and sitting in the back.  When I spoke up for the first time, everybody turned around to see who it was; they recognized the voice but had not seen me before.

 

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:30 AM George Zimmerman <george@cmephyconsulting.com> wrote:

I think Geoff makes an excellent point, one which I was discussing with a friend the other day when he was describing business meetings going back and forth between in-person and online.  Familiarity is an enabler for effective on-line meetings.  It builds empathy and understanding, which are vital to the consensus process. (or any agreement process).  With small groups (<10), some personal ‘check-in’ or ‘chit-chat’ time often helps to build familiarity online, but that doesn’t scale well.

For the most part, to the new participant, online meetings are kind of like cold sales calls.  I don’t think I’ve seen an effective model yet for building that familiarity with an extended sequence of online-only meetings.  So either we’d have to invent one (which I think is a bit of social science outside our primary expertise) or we need to weave personal interaction into the future meeting discussion.  For me, I think this means at least a couple face-to-face meetings per year, with participation/membership/voting rights heavily weighted to encourage attendance.

-george

  

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 10:17 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Your Input needed by the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc

 Colleagues-

The one topic I don't see on the list here that is significantly different between the short term problem and long term meeting remotely is that in addressing the short term problem, we had a situation where we all knew each other.  It is much easier to function in a remote meeting when it is between people who know each other.

When we went remote we had a lot of new folks attending because it was free and didn't require travel or huge blocks of time to do that.  I don't think we got a lot of new contributors or even critics during the process.

If we wish to continue remote or mixed on a long term basis we need to figure out how new blood will be able to worm their way into our process.

Geoff

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021, 08:23:23 AM PST, Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@att.net> wrote:

Dear EC Members,

Please respond to Andrew's below request, as your observations are important input to the IEEE 802 Future Meeting ad hoc.  If you don't have time to respond, please delegate it to an appropriate WG/TAG member.

Thank you and regards,

 --Paul

 ------ Original Message ------

From: "Andrew Myles (amyles)" <00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@listserv.ieee.org>

Sent: 11/26/2021 12:30:06 AM

Subject: [802SEC] More on IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc

 G’day all

 It has been four weeks since the last remote-only meeting of the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc. So far we have heard two perspectives on what has worked well and not so well in remote-only meetings over the last two years from:

 There has also been a small amount of e-mail discussion, questioning the efficacy of holding remote-only meetings for various TG and WGs in a short block

 Would anyone else like to share their perspectives … before I start driving the group towards conclusions?

 The request for perspectives is based on the following questions:

  • What aspects of remote operation have worked during COVID?
    • Highlight real examples
    • Identify why remote operation was successful in these cases
  • What aspects of remote operation have NOT worked during COVID?
    • Highlight real examples
    • Identify why remote operation was NOT successful in these cases
  • What could be done to turn any failures into successes?
    • Describe some real turnaround examples (if any)
    • … or hypothesise about how this could be done

 If we get a volunteer, I will suggest another remote-only call this year

 Andrew

 

Ben Rolfe’s notes from the session he led on 27 Oct 2021

 How can we make meetings more efficient?

·       Streamline the meeting preamble: develop a concise and consistent way of presenting

o   Right now various groups do it differently and it can take a significant time

o   Most participants have seen it many times already

o   Could ask people to review the slides before the meeting (maybe on calendar entry)

o   Need SA input on how abbreviated we can get

·       Reduce meeting density during sessions (ie number of meetings running in parallel)

o   More flexible for remote meetings more than in-person or hybrid

o   Less overlap can improve cross-WG participation

o   Not practical for in-person meetings

o   Some overlap unavoidable - a month long virtual session doesn’t work

o   Overlapping some things is more OK than other things

Observations on in person vs remote:

·       Initial impressions are important in building working relationship

·       The importance may vary based on activity

·       Remote makes this more difficult

·       Seen this slowing things down in 2020-21

Observations on the “IETF Experience”

·       Different “normal” than 802

·       But similar impacts noted:

o   Easier to continue progress on existing projects, mature projects

o   New work slowed

Question about remote only (whether temporary or as an alternative long term):

·       Need a process for improved socialization

·       Could a virtual social be useful?

o   Been tried in other forums

o   Results mixed

o   Comment that (technical conference) it didn’t’ work

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