Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
I would be very happy to return to Enschede for a meeting. Excellent
meeting facilities, and the town is great too. If they can cope with
a group as big as we are now, then we should take them up on the offer.
Regards,
Tony
At 19:27 27/11/2007, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>Can they handle 1500?
>
>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>Engineering Fellow
>BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>Cell: +1 973.229.9520
>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:17 PM
>To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
>
>
>FYI- We have a standing invitation with the University of Twente in
>Enschede NL to do another hosted Plenary there like we did in July 1996
>if folks would be interested in that. I'm pretty sure there are no
>packs of wild dogs there, but the Enschede Fireworks factory did explode
>about 12 years ago violently enough to make the International News.
>:-)
>
>Thanx, Buzz
>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>Boeing IT
>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>Seattle, WA 98124-2207
>Ph: (425) 373-8960 Fx: (425) 865-7960
>Cell: (425) 417-1022
>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>[mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 7:48 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
>
>Tony,
>
>I am only one voice on the EC, but using a university campus with
>everyone finding their hotel sounds fine with me. The one thing we
>should do is pick a university venue where a group of 1500 or so have
>gathered before so that we have an existence proof to point to.
>
>Mat
>
>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>Engineering Fellow
>BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>Cell: +1 973.229.9520
>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:09 AM
>To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>Cc: wk3c@wk3c.com; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
>
>Mat -
>
>I have indeed tried to take just such an active role in the past - on
>that occasion we came up against apathy on the part of the target
>hotel & the idea crashed and burned.
>
>Any solutions in the UK are likely to be based around university
>campuses as far as I can tell. If that sounds at all interesting I
>will see what I can do with the contacts I have. But it would almost
>certainly NOT involve accommodation in a single hotel - maybe not
>even in a hotel at all (student accommodation for example). In the
>days when I was doing ISO SC21 I went to several meetings that were
>organized on that basis.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 14:46 27/11/2007, Sherman, Matthew J. \(US SSA\) wrote:
> >Frankly Carl, I'm very close to joining you. I like to jog, and the
> >wild dogs really got to me. But I wanted to make the arguments in
>favor
> >of Rome as forcefully as possible because I didn't feel they had been
> >stated on the reflector yet.
> >
> >To push back just a little bit, you have to ask what constitutes a
> >disaster? We have knowingly operated meetings in the red before.
> >Hawaii is an example, and by the way I believe we once operated a
> >meeting in Vancouver where we wound up $50K in the hole. We found
> >creative ways of getting ourselves out of the hole (scheduling more
> >meetings in Vancover). I'm not sure what our exposure on this meeting
> >will be, but it would be helpful if we quantify it with probabilities.
> >What is the probability we wind up $100K in the hole? 200k? 300K?
> >etc...
> >
> >Bottom line is, this stinks! I don't like Rome, but I see no evidence
> >that we will have any non-NA meetings ever at the moment. People keep
> >saying it's too hard, but they are too inflexible in my opinion.
> >
> >FYI, I'm contacting the IETF to try and find someone over there who
> >organizes their meetings and get a better picture of how the IETF does
> >things.
> >
> >Tony,
> >
> >You are on the other side of the pond. Is it possible you could take a
> >more active role in perhaps locating a venue for IEEE 802 somewhere in
> >England?
> >
> >Frankly I'd prefer non-London. But other large groups must meet in the
> >UK from time to time. There must be a way to do this... And we can't
> >just say it is more expensive, let's never do business in Europe. Many
> >other organizations find ways of making this work. There has to be a
> >way to conduct business outside of NA.
> >
> >Mat
> >
> >
> >
> >Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> >Engineering Fellow
> >BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
> >Office: +1 973.633.6344
> >Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> >email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@wk3c.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:33 AM
> >To: 'Tony Jeffree'; Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> >Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
> >
> >Mat,
> >
> >I have to agree with Tony on the point that, in essence, we shouldn't
> >knowingly walk into a buzzsaw with the idea that we "will learn from
>our
> >mistakes."
> >
> >While hopefully we all learn from our mistakes, mistakes should, by
> >definiition, be accidental, not something that we knowingly walk into
> >knowing that it's going to be a disaster.
> >
> >We have a fiduciary responsibility to 802 to not blow our reserves
> >(which we
> >need for truely unpreventable occurrances, not preventable ones, and we
> >need
> >to remain mindful that those funds in reserve are really our attendees'
> >money held in trust for legitimate 802 expenses).
> >
> >I think at this point the only truly responsible thing we can do is to
> >accept the fact that a viable nNA session for March 2009 has been
>blown,
> >contract for Vancouver, and redouble our efforts to make SURE that we
> >get
> >VIABLE nNA venues in the schedule ASAP (first making sure that the 2010
> >and
> >2011 nNA slots work, second looking for other opportunities for the
> >future
> >with a determined eye to success, not the frustration of an intial
> >failure).
> >
> >Regards,
> >Carl
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> > > Tony Jeffree
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 1:26 AM
> > > To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> > > Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
> > >
> > > Mat -
> > >
> > > Comments interspersed below.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > At 04:25 27/11/2007, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> > > >Mike / All,
> > > >
> > > >I'm still withholding my vote.
> > > >
> > > >I voted abstain last time because I didn't feel we were given
>enough
> > > >time to consider the matter. I will come off the fence this
> > > time, but
> > > >I'm not sure which side yet.
> > > >
> > > >I currently favor voting against this motion. Rome would be
> > > a hardship
> > > >(for me as well as the group). Yes, there is financial risk, but
>we
> > > >have dealt with financial insecurity before, and will face it
>again.
> > > >This is a new experience, and by definition we have a lot to learn.
> > > >But whatever happens we will benefit from the experience and it
>will
> > > >help us refine our techniques for selecting future Non-NA
> > > meeting sites.
> > >
> > > I think there is a big difference between dealing with
> > > financial eventualities that we cannot predict and going into
> > > a situation with open eyes that we can see is highly likely
> > > to be a financial disaster. IMHO the latter is where we would
> > > be going with Rome.
> > >
> > >
> > > >As for the poll, I can't help but feel that IEEE802 was
> > > presented with
> > > >only half the story. Unfortunately, I could not attend the
> > > activities
> > > >that developed the poll, but it seemed more focused on the raw
>cost,
> > > >and presented little rationale as to why the extra financial
> > > costs and
> > > >risks may be warranted. Here are some rationales in favor
> > > of staying
> > > >the course with Rome:
> > > >
> > > >1) We seem to have forgotten the original rationale for doing
>non-NA
> > > >plenarys to begin with. While we can poll the people who
> > > attended the
> > > >last 802 in Atlanta, we can't poll any of the people who
> > > didn't because
> > > >Atlanta was not a convenient location for them to attend. By
> > > >definition the poll is biased because it did not include the many
> > > >people who might have attended IEEE802 if it were in Europe or
>Asia,
> > > >but couldn't because it was in Atlanta. In short, we don't
> > > know who we
> > > >are disenfranchising from the IEEE802 process, and can't
> > > unless we take
> > > >IEEE802 to other locations and see what happens.
> > >
> > > That is true - we clearly don't know what we don't know.
> > > However, from the survey information, we *can* see who we are
> > > likely to be disenfranchising in our existing population of
> > > attendees, and it is a significant number of people. That is
> > > hard to ignore on the basis that it might be a smaller number
> > > of people than the ones we might be disenfranchising but that
> > > we don't know about. As I have said, it is a significant
> > > enough problem that it will probably mean at least one of my
> > > task groups in 802.1 won't be viable at that meeting, and we
> > > may have to consider holding a separate meeting for that TG
> > > to make progress.
> > >
> > >
> > > >2) In my opinion Vancouver should never have been considered. The
> > > >requirements for this meeting (as I recall) were that it should be
> > > >non-NA. It's not even clear to me why Vancouver was on the list to
> > > >begin with as it did not meet the stated requirements.
> > >
> > > I think you are way off base here. From all the evidence that
> > > has come to light in the discussions of the Rome venue, it is
> > > Rome that should never have been considered. It just doesn't
> > > meet our needs as a meeting venue. In contrast, Vancouver
> > > works just fine.
> > >
> > > If what you mean is that we should never have been presented
> > > with a choice between a (suitable) NA and a (suitable) nNA
> > > venue, I would agree; however, fixing that by presenting a
> > > completely unsuitable nNA venue as the only choice makes no
> > > sense to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > >3) In my mind Vancouver is the 'easy way out'. Yes we would have a
> > > >successful session in Vancouver (we've had many before). But I'm
> > > >really worried if we bail now, it will just bail again and
> > > again in the future.
> > > >If I understand correctly, we spent 3 years trying to set up
> > > the non-NA
> > > >session for 2009, and Rome was the best we can do? The next
> > > opportunity
> > > >for a non-NA meeting is 2011, and I see no evidence that we
> > > will do any
> > > >better then. I am worried about establishing a pattern of
> > > taking the
> > > >easy way out an never going non-NA because it is just too hard. I
> > > >really feel if we don't try, we won't learn from our mistakes.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry - it makes no sense to me to choose a venue that we
> > > know ahead of time is highly likely to be a disaster just so
> > > that we can "learn from our mistakes". That makes about as
> > > much sense as walking into the middle of a busy freeway so
> > > you can learn that playing with the traffic is a really bad idea.
> > >
> > >
> > > >4) Other organizations seem to make this work. IETF is the closest
> > > >example I can think of. Why is it they can do it, and we can't?
> > >
> > > Thats a good question, and we need to find out how they do it.
> > > However, they clearly haven't succeeded by choosing
> > > unsuitable venues. Neither will we.
> > >
> > >
> > > >5) Other IEEE meetings (MILCOM is the most recent one I have
> > > attended)
> > > >regularly have registration fees over $1000, and yet have 4000
> > > >attendees, and charge >$250 per night for rooms in Orlando.
> > > Some have
> > > >argued that IEEE802 has plenarys 3 times a year, so it's not a fair
> > > >comparison. But we are only going non-NA once every two years at
>the
> > > >moment. If once every two years we have a meeting that
> > > costs about the
> > > >same as what other IEEE meetings normally cost, (I'm assuming many
>of
> > > >our attendee will find cheaper hotels for $250/night) then I
> > > don't see
> > > >this as an issue.
> > >
> > > Different population. Different industry sector. Different drivers
> > > and constraints. I don't see the relevance of the comparison
> > > to our situation.
> > >
> > >
> > > >6) A prior poll of IEEE802 seemed to favor Rome. So we sort of
>have
> > > >conflicting info in front of us. Assumedly price is what turned the
> > > >community against Rome, but it's not clear to me the issues were
> > > >properly presented. Hotel costs should have been decoupled from
> > > >registration fees in the question.
> > >
> > > There are all sorts of factors that may have affected the results:
> > >
> > > - Later poll, therefore based on more complete information
>(therefore
> > > more relevant).
> > > - Different voting population. The population that attends plenaries
> > > is not the same as the population that attends interims - looking at
> > > my attendance records, we get far more people showing up at
>plenaries
> > > as first time attendees, for example. I would argue that as we were
> > > choosing a plenary venue, asking the plenary population is likely to
> > > give the more relevant answer.
> > > - Shifts both in costs and the exchange rate have made Rome look
>even
> > > less attractive.
> > > - There has been time for attendees to discuss with their management
> > > since the interim - maybe if they had been able to do that for the
> > > interim poll the answer would have been different.
> > > - Etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > >7) While I don't like the venue in Rome, we have been left
> > > with no other
> > > >Non-NA choices. I still think there are things that can be done to
> > > >improve the situation. For instance, we could run a bus
> > > service (even
> > > >if only twice a day) to / from a central location in Rome.
> > > Many people
> > > >commute in their daily lives. People drive and take cabs.
> > > If the Cab
> > > >fare is $50 each way, but it saves you $200 on your room,
> > > perhaps that
> > > >is worth it.
> > >
> > > I think Pat already de-bunked this one. Even ignoring the cost of
> > > running sufficient coaches, we're talking a major logistical
> > > nightmare here - with more than half of our attendees having to find
> > > hotels off-site, that means shifting 800+ people from the hotel to
> > > central Rome at peak times. That's just not going to happen.
> > >
> > >
> > > >8) Something I don't see being accounted is that not everyone is
> > > >spending dollars. If someone is paid in Euros or Yen, will
> > > they still
> > > >perceive these costs are as out of line as Americans might? If
>they
> > > >already travel regularly in Europe, they might view the costs
> > > >differently. Also the costs presented are speculative. It is
>still
> > > >possible that the dollar will be stronger by the time we go
> > > to Rome, and
> > > >the difference in cost might not be so dramatic.
> > >
> > > Even priced in Euros or Pounds, those prices look too high to me.
> > >
> > > Yes, anything could happen to the exchange rates - the US economy
> > > could suddenly enter another boom, for example. I'm not holding my
> > > breath. In the meantime, this place is expensive.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Anyway, I encourage further debate and comment before we
> > > conclude this.
> > > >I will probably wait another day before casting my vote and see how
> > > >others respond to my comments above.
> > > >
> > > >Mat
> > > >
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.