All – Please forgive me. Jon Rosdahl reminds me that we already have a motion setting July as providing remote access. The fee-setting motion from the March Closing (see Exec Secretary report
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/22/ec-22-0002-03-00EC-executive-secretary-agenda-items-2022-march-plenary.pptx ) says (emphasis added):
- Motion to approve Recommended fees/dates for 2022 July IEEE 802
Mixed Mode Plenary for either in person or remote attendance:
-george
From: George Zimmerman
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 8:37 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] July Plenary
All –
While we have been operating under that assumption, as far as I know, we haven’t made a formal commitment to offer remote access. Like Steve, I have that same understanding, and I also agree that neither can we control, nor should we
wait for, the date at which all home and venue countries have open travel.
However, the important fact here is that I am also aware that IEEE 802 hasn’t actually committed to the path of offering remote access.
Once we do that, we can communicate that decision as a policy, and can work details regarding whether there are eligibility requirements and whether (and what) rules a mixed-mode meeting operates under at both the Standards Committee and
the Working Group level.
One question people have is ‘can we do it within cost’. As treasurer, and having seen a lot of the sausage making in the planning, I am convinced that we CAN make some form of remote access functional within the normal cost uncertainties
that we have. This doesn’t mean that we meet everyone’s expectation for remote access. No, we are not going to have 3D AR/Virtual Reality socials, but there are considerations. Video on the floor of a meeting may or may not be offered, but that is a value-add,
in my opinion, not ‘basic remote access’ to the meeting. There are other issues, such as, given the survey data, whether we would want to offer remote access for all as an option, or only in cases of an undue burden (e.g., from a governmental authority).
While these relate to the cost, think those policy issues may and should be resolved separately from whether we commit to offer remote access at all.
It would be useful to have a clear and formal decision resolving that 802 offer remote access to the first in-person plenary session held, and to have it in place.
If a motion needs to be made, I would be willing to make it – something of the form, ‘The IEEE 802 executive committee resolves that the first in-person plenary meeting will offer some form of remote access for participants unable to travel.’
-george
Hi John,
It is my understanding that the July plenary will be Mixed-Mode. Presumably, John can confirm.
It is my position that if we hold a meeting in a location where there are any Covid-related travel restrictions we need to support Mixed-Mode.
Many locations are dropping their Covid-related travel restrictions, but until that become ubiquitous, we are likely going to need to support Mixed-Mode meetings.
We can also start to select locations that do not have these Covid-related travel restrictions.
Regards,
Steve
WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
Jon
Sorry for the late response – tried to take a couple of days PTO – but we all know how that goes.
Thanks for your response below. The reason why I asked this was I saw in your Exec Sec report that you had “Travel authorizations from / to countries” under your items to consider for in-person sessions.
I am sure you can understand why I feel asking anyone to give up 3 weeks of their lives in quarantine after attending a plenary meeting doesn’t feel fair – and begs the question is there another option we can offer?
This leads me to my next question and given my prior misinterpretation of your report – I don’t wish to do again. You note in your presentation – mixed mode meeting requirements. However, it is not clear to me one way or the other what
we are doing for July. Will there be mixed mode support? This is not noted on the meeting announcement page (which IMO – should be noted).
I do not believe the EC has made any sort of decision on mixed mode support for the July Plenary. Will you be addressing this in your future meetings agenda item for the April teleconference? I hope so as I think it needs to be addressed,
and probably should have an EC motion backing it up.
Given my recent discovery regarding what participants may have to deal with in getting back to their own countries – I think this has taken on new meaning.
Regards
John
If we were to have the meeting in Canada today, the rules of Entry to Canada would be different than they will be on April 1st.
The rules for re-entry to anyone's country of Origin may be different next week also.
You are correct, I am not trying to track everyone's return requirements. That is an exercise for those that are most familiar with the respective country.
I spoke to Sha Wei (SASB Member in Beijing) this morning, and the requirements that she described to me were different from what your colleagues described.
Does that mean one or the other is wrong? No, it means that in China, there are some City specific requirements as well as Country requirements.
I am not going to claim to be an expert on reentry requirements for any country.
I can only ask that you (and everyone else) please look at the requirements, and make decisions on personal travel accordingly.
We are looking forward to the relaxing of the COVID-19 requirements around the world.
I am optimistic that this will occur.
My Hope is that by July Plenary, we will have sufficient numbers in person to justify the mixed mode format.
The reality is that each individual that can travel in July should make the reservation
(Remember to put the room type in the comments -- this is an issue with the hotel reservation system ).
The Hotel Reservation count (about 20% as of today) is a better barometer than the strawpolls.
Let's see how many are willing and able to attend in July, and lead with that information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!!
Jon / George,
In the past week I have been contacted by people asking about the July Plenary in Montreal. One individual who lives in Canada is very concerned about attendance at the event and told me I should talk with my colleagues in China about what it takes to go
back to China from Canada.
I spoke to one of my colleagues this week from China, who is actually dealing with this right now, and as he described to me, it is a significant decision for him. First, he told me he is required to get 4 covid tests within the week of leaving. While
a hassle, I could understand people saying that’s not so bad. However, he also told me that once back in China, he needs to quarantine in a hotel for two weeks where he is not permitted to leave his room, and after the two weeks if ok, goes to another hotel
for another week where it isn’t as restrictive. So attending this meeting will require him to quarantine away from his family for three weeks in these hotels. While clearly a cost issue for the companies paying for this – I think it is a pretty big request
of us to make of our participants.
I looked through the material that has been presented, and Jon’s executive secretary report indicates that entering and exiting Canada is being monitored. I will say that I remember more discussion about getting into Canada than exiting.
I realize this is a large task given all of the various countries that people are attending from – but are we aware of the burden our participants will have to deal with globally to leave the July Plenary. I looked in the report, and I did not see any of
this really addressed. If I missed something, I apologize – but I would like to understand this better.
I do realize that this will be used to support the argument for hybrid meetings. However, the reality is, and I think that there is general agreement about this, that there is an inherent value in being able to meet F2F, which is why we are trying to push
ahead. Given this new info I learned – it seems that the investment that different individuals must make, will differ greatly based on their geographic location, and I have reservations about that.
Thanks in advance.
John D’Ambrosia
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