Re: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DOIT NOW !!!)
Buzz,
Option #2 is fine with me.
However, I don't feel comfortable choosing between Option #2 and
Option #1. If 802.3 wants to come to Orlando too, I am happy to
share. If they prefer Sacramento, that's fine too. I wouldn't want to
see Option #2 win your poll if 802.3 supports Option #1, or vice
versa.
Roger
At 6:37 AM -0800 00/11/29, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
>Dear SEC: OK here's the pitch for the May Interim. Please response ASAP !!!
>
>After some rather intensive searching of the Orlando area for a
>suitable venue (and checking other Eastern locations as well) we've
>finally come up with something that looks workable, but we need to
>make an immediate decision as to how we want to go.
>
>We have found 2nd option availability at the Hyatt Orlando in
>Kissimmee, FL (a resort property ~1.5 miles from Walt Disney
>World). During our week of May 14-19, 2001, they can offer us up to
>625 of their 922 rooms per night and there's a large Radisson right
>nearby which could provide any necessary overflow rooms and/or
>meeting space. The Hyatt Orlando has a good selection of meeting
>space, all centrally located, and almost all of it is currently
>available (only a couple of the smaller rooms are currently booked).
>We believe there is enough space to do all the meetings for an
>Interim meeting for all of our Working Groups. The group rate they
>are offering is $119/129 S/D. Their pricings for Food & Beverage,
>Audio Visual, and Miscellaneous services look to be very competitive
>for the area. You can check out all the details of the property at
>their website at:
> http://www.hyatt.com/usa/kissimmee/hotels/hotel_mcoor.html
>
>OK, so what's this 2nd option business all about ??? This means
>there is another group who has asked Hyatt Orlando to hold space for
>their function during that same week, but they have not committed to
>sign a contract yet. How it works is as follows: if we sign a 2nd
>option contract for the dates we want, the other group is given 72
>hours to either sign their contract or release the space (and we're
>in). The probabilities are good that if we act now we WILL get the
>space. The problem is that we have a nice gentleman from Intel,
>(Dawson Kesling) who has offered to host an 802.3 Interim meeting at
>the Hyatt Sacramento, who is holding space there and he is being
>pressured to sign a contract or risk losing the space. If he loses
>the space and the other group signs the contract at Hyatt Orlando,
>then we're back to square zero.
>
>So I see 3 possible options for us to choose from:
>
>Option #1: We say, "Go for it!" We sign the contract for the full
>meeting and we'll know in 72 hours whether we have a site or not.
>We tell Dawson, "Thank you very much for your offer and we'll hope
>to have you host a meeting in the future." If we strikeout at Hyatt
>Orlando, we go back and look at several other back-up properties to
>get the deal we need (we currently have several, but only 1 is in
>the Orlando area).
>
>Option #2: We divide the meeting. We let 802.3 go ahead and do
>their own thing at the Hyatt Sacramento and we do everybody else at
>Hyatt Orlando (if we can get in). We can reduce the room block to
>500, we will certainly have plenty of meeting space, and we won't
>need to worry about overflow space. OK so it's not a fully
>co-located 802-Hosted Interim meeting, but we said this was an
>experiment to see how it works. It probably best to start off with
>a more manageable-sized group anyway.
>
>Option #3: We blow-off the 802-Hosted May Interim meeting
>completely, every WG does their own thing with their own hosts, and
>we think about maybe trying this again sometime in the future.
>
>I'm going to go out on a limb here and recommend Option #2 for your
>consideration, since it seems to get us a trial run and we take on
>the least risk, but the choice really belongs to the WG chairs who
>have to survive these meetings. I also think we should weight the
>voting on this by the size of the constituency (as recorded at
>Tampa) since I'm a believer in 1-man, 1-vote, and we're trying to do
>what's right for the greatest number of people here (note: this
>implies the vote for an SEC member with no WG would count 1).
>
>Whatever you decide (i.e. Option #1, 2, or 3), you must send me you
>response TODAY because we risk losing all if we don't decide right
>away. In the unlikely event of a tie vote, I flip a coin to see who
>wins. Please decide now !!! Later will be TOO LATE and you'll wind
>up with Option #3 by default. You may call or send email to Dawn or
>myself if you have any burning questions but please don't bother
>with suggesting other Options which we have overlooked/forgotten.
>What you see is what you get. Tempus Fugit !!!
>
>We await your response. :-)
>
>Thanx, Buzz
>Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>Boeing SSG
>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>Seattle, WA 98124-2207
>ph: (425) 865-2443, fx: (425) 865-6721
>email: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>Thanx, Buzz
>Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>Boeing SSG
>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>Seattle, WA 98124-2207
>ph: (425) 865-2443, fx: (425) 865-6721
>email: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com