Andrew – different groups have different levels of responsibility. We all balance risks with benefit/impairment. We asked a survey which relates to how individuals balance these risks. Governmental and corporate concerns feed into that,
but are not necessarily the same. For example, government is worried about public health & spread into a population, corporations are worried about the same spread into their employee population as well liability; while an individual’s exposure to these concerns
is more indirect, coupled to his own sense of corporate or social duty. Hence, I try to take the data as it is, and not read into it.
I think we need to take this data and use it in our 802 planning process, where we must balance any differential in progress between virtual and face-to-face meetings (and meeting venue) with having inclusive and viable meetings.
Looking at this, I believe what it says is that most people aren’t comfortable until at least Q1, based on their individual risk.
More interesting to me is the spread of sponsor policies, which show that nearly half of them have unknown expiration dates, or expiration beyond March 2021 (which gives a lot of time for things to change). Having looked at the comments
in the responses, nearly all of the “Late 2021” and “2022+” responses can be considered “Unknown” – there aren’t fixed dates for these.
However, it is fair that those with “Unknown” are also after the first of the year, and such an assumption would be consistent with the ‘personal risk’ responses.
|
My sponsor travel restrictions related to COVID-19 are scheduled to expire or be reconsidered by:
|
|
|
|
2020-09
|
44
|
25%
|
|
2020-11
|
43
|
24%
|
|
2021-03
|
8
|
4%
|
|
2022+
|
3
|
2%
|
|
Late 2021
|
6
|
3%
|
|
Unknown
|
75
|
42%
|
Given the fact that people’s perception, sponsor policies, and government policies continue to evolve, I think we probably should re-poll again sometime in the fall to get a view on next year, as this says that at least 47% of our respondents
lack clarity beyond Q1 2021.
-george
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles)
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 7:00 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] feedback on IEEE 802 Session Attendee Survey result
G’day all,
This is interesting data. I am actually shocked that anyone would even consider travelling to Atlanta in September for an IEEE 802 meeting (except possibly those living in Atlanta). Clearly some do not recognise the severity
of the situation the world is facing right now.
You all know the data, the world is not yet in recovery mode and there are few signs of sustained recovery (except possibly in New Zealand)
- Globally COVID-19 is spreading faster than it has at any time since the start of the pandemic
- This is also roughly the case in the US
- The global death rate seems stuck at ~4.5k per day
The best way of summarising the advisory of international travel (on basis we are an international SDO) is to examine at the travel advisories of various countries:
- US: level 4, do not travel
- Australia: entry & exit banned
- UK: advises against all but essential international travel
- Canada: avoid all non-essential travel outside of Canada
- …
I believe that IEEE 802 should not even consider holding any F2F meetings until the level of these advisories have significantly reduced. The health of our members (and everyone else) is too important to risk for the
sake of progressing an IEEE 802 standard slightly faster.
Andrew
Paul,
The numbers in your chart are basically correct (though it looks like your denominator excluded the "never" answers; that's a minor issue).
I would summarize the cumulative results this way:
|
|
2020-09
|
2020-11
|
Q1 2021
|
Q2 2021
|
Late 2021
|
2022+
|
|
North America
|
19%
|
35%
|
74%
|
87%
|
96%
|
99%
|
|
Asia
|
3%
|
35%
|
57%
|
71%
|
90%
|
98%
|
|
Europe
|
16%
|
30%
|
60%
|
77%
|
94%
|
99%
|
I would say that this is the closest we have to an expected turnout ratio given a region and date.
By comparison, regarding the question about the Sept 2020 session: 84 people (25%) said "absolutely" or "very likely". That's not necessarily a contradiction with the table. I calculated that 33% of the surveys answered "2020-09" to "When is the earliest you
can attend a session?" for at least one region.
I think we could also speculate about how the sample is skewed. My guess is that the responses skew toward more active participants and that less active ones were less likely to participate. I see that responses indicate having attended an average of 4.12
sessions out of the last 7; that's a rough gauge of activity, but we could look more closely at the details.
On Jun 23, 2020, 2:33 PM -0600, Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@att.net>, wrote:
Thank you for preparing and compiling the survey results. Based on a quick review of the results, it appears no more than 248 (~75% of the 334 respondents) would attend a face to face session until Q1 2021 in a North
American venue. See graph below. The numbers are similar for Asia and Europe. Please confirm my numbers are correct.
------ Original Message ------
Sent: 6/22/2020 1:11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Fwd: [802SEC] Fwd: IEEE 802 Session Attendee Survey: please participate
On Jun 22, 2020, 10:54 AM -0600, Jay Holcomb <jholcomb@ieee.org>, wrote:
hey Roger,
thanks so much for the time you put on this, interesting on many fronts.
you may want to check the formulas on the summary tab for first time to NAM. they look to be identical to first time to Asia.
fyi
I've compiled the results of the IEEE 802 Session Attendee Survey:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/20/ec-20-0114-00-00EC.xlsx
You'll see three tabs: one for the full data, one for the summary results, and one for the compiled free-form text responses.
If you want to see the summary results for a subset of the data (e.g., a limited number of WGs), you can delete the rows you want to ignore. I found that simply hiding those rows does not remove them from the counts. If you know a better way to present the
results, you can consider sharing an updated version.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
Date: Jun 15, 2020, 5:52 PM -0600
To: SEC STDS-802-SEC <stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org>
Subject: IEEE 802 Session Attendee Survey: please participate
Cheers,
Roger Marks
IEEE 802 LSMC, Second Vice Chair
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
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