RE: stds-802-16: planning for Session #23 in January 2003
[Reflector subscribers: This is the last time I will bother you on this topic.]
David,
After we narrowed the choice to Korea and Montreal, we unanimously
approved the motion of Paul Struhsaker "to make the decision on the
September meeting site via a straw poll of all those present (members
and nonmembers alike)." At that point, a further motion on the
September site was out of order, since a motion is something that is
decided upon by the members, and the issue had already been taken out
of the hands of the membership and put in the hands of a straw poll
of "all those present". Therefore, in my opinion, the only proper
procedure was to carry through with the poll.
Furthermore, "all those present" had not been given the power to
decide on the January site, so it would be improper to put the
January venue before the whole assembly.
By the way, there was no solicitation for proposals for a January
venue, and no one submitted any such proposal. Specifically, there
was no proposal to host a January session in Korea and no indication
that anyone had any interest in doing so.
As you know, "The Chair of the Working Group decides procedural
issues." I am comfortable with the decisions I made.
Roger
At 4:28 PM +0100 02/06/05, David Trinkwon wrote:
>Yes - you DID propose a motion to decide the location of the September
>meeting by straw poll of anyone present and this passed. In my recollection
>this motion did NOT include the actual question to be put to the straw poll
>which is why I immediately proposed the motion to consider both the
>September and January venues in the single straw poll vote (i.e. Montreal
>then Korea versus Korea then Montreal). You did not allow me to complete the
>wording of my motion and rejected it as out of order (which it wasn't). You
>then bulldozed the straw poll vote on your own motion of deciding (only)
>between Korea or Montreal for September.
>
>Incidentally - checking the travel plans for Korea I have discovered that
>all except two flights per day to/from Cheju are from the Seoul domestic
>airport (Gimpo) whereas most (if not all) International flights are to/from
>Seoul Incheon airport, with a minimum connection time of approx three hours.
>WG members need to check their travel plans carefully to take account of
>this transfer between the two Seoul airports, unless they are lucky enough
>to be able to use the two direct flights to/from Incheon and Cheju ( In my
>case I would have to wait more than six hours on the outward leg and more
>than eighteen hours (overnight) on the return ) It would be helpful if
>Samsung could provide more detailed information on the transfer arrangements
>/ costs between the two airports. Will they accept US $ or will we need
>Korean WON immediately on arrival ?
>
>David Trinkwon
>Email : Trinkwon@compuserve.com
>USA Tel : 650 245 5650 Fax : 650 649 2728
>UK Tel : +44 (0)7802 538315 Fax : +44 (0)20 7504 3586
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
>Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:36 PM
>To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: stds-802-16: planning for Session #23 in January 2003
>
>
>
>David,
>
>I refused to entertain your motion because, seconds earlier, we had
>unanimously passed a motion "to make the decision on the September
>meeting site via a straw poll of all those present (members and
>nonmembers alike)." Your proposed motion was incompatible.
>
>Also, we haven't missed our opportunity to choose the January site
>six months in advance. That's what I've scheduled us to do in July.
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 9:52 AM +0100 02/06/04, David Trinkwon wrote:
>>Roger - by blocking my Motion in Calgary to select Montreal for September
>>and Korea for January you missed an opportunity to achieve your six month
>>target for the January meeting.
>>
>>David Trinkwon
>>Email : Trinkwon@compuserve.com
>>USA Tel : 650 245 5650 Fax : 650 649 2728
> >UK Tel : +44 (0)7802 538315 Fax : +44 (0)20 7504 3586
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
> >[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
>>Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 5:20 PM
>>To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
>>Subject: stds-802-16: planning for Session #23 in January 2003
>>
>>
>>
>>Folks,
>>
>>We have recently gotten into the habit of selecting our interim
>>session site four months in advance. I think that this is a little
>>late and may be reducing the options of our hosts and potential
>>hosts. Also, we had three contenders for Session #21, and several
>>others that were interested but didn't make a real proposal. I
>>already have at least three definite inquiries for Session #23. It's
>>great to have multiple proposals, and it shows the vitality of our
>>group. However, with multiple proposals on the table, we might not
>>even know what continent we'll be visiting four months away. That can
>>cause some planning problems.
>>
>>I would like to change our habit and begin making the choice six
>>months out. This means that I'd like us to select a site during each
>>802 Plenary Session. In July, we should be selecting a site for
>>Session #23. I would like to invite proposals.
>>
>>In order to aid prospective Hosts in planning a proposal and in
>>organizing an Interim Session, I have put together the following
>>document:
>>
>>Title: IEEE 802.16 Interim Session Guidelines
>>Document Number: IEEE 802.16-02/30
>>URL: <http://ieee802.org/16/docs/02/80216-02_30.pdf>
>>
>>Also included is a defined procedure to make a choice among competing
>>proposals.
>>
>>In addition, here are some specific guidelines for Session #23:
>>
>>*We generally aim to meet mid-month. The week of January 13 looks
>>best. On the other hand, we could probably move a week forward or
>>backward without a problem, so the host has some flexibility in the
>>proposed dates. I don't foresee any ballot schedules that will
>>dictate a particular date. If anyone sees any important schedule
>>overlaps for January, please let us know.
>>
>>*It's hard to predict the attendance. We had 97 at Session #15, 54 at
>>#17, and 87 at #19. I would probably expect 50-70 but have room for
>>90 or 100. A lot depends on how our projects develop.
>>
>>If you plan to make a proposal, I'd like to make note of that so I
>>can so put this information on the web. I think that people want to
>>know who else is proposing before they develop their own proposal.
>>
>>Cheers!
>>
>>Roger