Re: [802.3_B400G] Fwd: [802.3_B400G_OPTX] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Tr

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Chris,

Thank you for your thoughtful input.

However, your recollection of the absence of discussion is wrong. I was on the call. I recall lots of discussion. I have spoken with others who were on the call – lots of discussion.

While I can understand that freeform discussion can have its benefits – it can also be unfair, as some individuals have a tendency to talk in excess, which then eats into the time for others to get their questions in. Anyone chairing within 802.3 recognizes that they have to address conversation and fairness, as well as decorum.

In my opinion other task force participants have recognized the time constraints that the chairs are dealing with and accommodate the situation. I was thankful that the .3df / .3dj task forces recognized this after I explained the time constraints we were under at this week’s joint task force meeting. We got through our agenda quickly and had more time for discussion / straw polls / motions.

I asked Mark to be the Vice-Chair of this effort given my respect for his efforts in my past task forces as well as his own. However, this is a big project with lots of issues to address. As you seem to have ideas on how to run these task force meetings, can I assume that you are now willing to be a volunteer that I can draw upon to chair such efforts and meetings. Please let me know and I will keep this in mind for the next challenge the task force faces that needs someone to step up and drive an issue to completion.

Regards

John

From: Chris Cole <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 5:58 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B400G] Fwd: [802.3_B400G_OPTX] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track June ad hoc meetings announcement

Hi Mark

I don't think it's that complicated. My view is that on Ad Hoc calls we should not limit to one clarifying question, but rather allow a back forth within reason. Only when it gets repetitive, or meandering without purpose, should it be cut off.

However, that's only one opinion. What's important is to get a sense from the participants what balance they would like struck; one clarifying question, like during interim or plenary sessions, or more discussion.

Chris

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 8:45 AM Mark Nowell (mnowell) <mnowell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Chris,

I’m sorry you felt some constraints in the discussions at the last ad hoc call. I 100% agree with you that the goal of the meetings is to foster discussion. I don’t have any recollection of that particular meeting being one where I was needing to limit discussion but of course it happens.

When we set up these meetings we have no idea how many people will request a presentation slot. We try to judge meeting engagement when we announce the meeting duration. But have no control on how many requests we receive. We ask each presenter for their requested time allocation. Then within the meetings we aim to balance the time each presentation has so as not to squeeze out later presentations in the agenda by running out of time. That would be unfair to someone who has put in the time and effort to pull together a contribution.

It is not an exact science as you know. And requires quite a bit of judgement to attempt to balance all presenters with their time to present and allow participants their time to discuss. On some meetings this is easy, and others very difficult. I really have no recollection of what you are talking about below though. I think we spent the first hour on Mike’s presentation and Q&A (request time was 20 mins). Some of that time was lost due to Mike dealing with a power cut at home but I can imagine that around an hour for one presentation I was starting to be aware that the other presenters needed to have their fair time to present and may have started trying to wrap things up.

I don’t think anyone would have objected to going back to Mike’s Q&A after we finished out the other two presentations (which again both exceeded requested time with lots of discussion). I frankly didn’t think of it but would have been open to the suggestion to go back to Mike’s topic if anyone had asked.

Mark

From: Chris Cole <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [802.3_B400G] Fwd: [802.3_B400G_OPTX] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track June ad hoc meetings announcement
Hi Mark

I fully agree with your stated objective for the Ad Hoc calls.

"The purpose of these ad hoc meetings is allow discussion and contributions on any of these topics."

The Ad Hoc is a unique opportunity for discussion, because we are not under time constraint as during the interim or plenary sessions.

Given this, I was puzzled by the last logic and optics ad hoc call which prevented discussion and only allowed one clarifying question, with exception for few questioners. The absence of discussion was highlighted by the few back and forth exceptions, for example your colleague Brian Welch and presenter Mike Dudek. Since both are thoughtful individuals, their exchange was worth its weight in gold. It was frustrating when other thoughtful individuals with expertise that I don't have, for example David Ofelt, were cut off from follow up questions. Genuine opportunities to learn were missed. (One odd moment was when David Ofelt apologized to you for starting to ask a second question. It seems like it should have been the other way around.) Personally, I also didn't appreciate being prevented from follow-up with Mike Dudek. The ad hoc call ended 45mins early, which seems like the wrong priority. Full use of the allocated time to facilitate genuine discussion would have been preferable.

Perhaps at the start of the next ad hoc call, we could ask the participants whether we should rush through the presentations to get done early, or manage the time to enable discussion.

Thank you

Chris

From: Mark Nowell (mnowell) <00000b59be7040a9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 2:47 AM
Subject: [802.3_B400G_OPTX] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track June ad hoc meetings announcement
To: <STDS-802-3-B400G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

This email serves to announce the next IEEE P802.3dj joint logic and optics track ad hoc meetings.

Meeting dates, times and deadlines:

Meeting
Agenda request deadline (5pm PT)
Contribution submission deadline (5pm PT)
Tues Aug 15^th, 7am to 10am PT
Wed Aug 9^th
Fri Aug 11^th
Tues Aug 29^th, 7am to 10am PT
Wed Aug 23^rd
Fri Aug 25^th

The call details will be available on the TF website at https://www.ieee802.org/3/dj/public/adhoc/optics/index.html and can be found on the IEEE call and meeting calendar at https://www.ieee802.org/3/calendar.html

Coming out of the May plenary meeting, we identified a number of areas where more information is needed or more consensus is needed. The purpose of these ad hoc meetings is allow discussion and contributions on any of these topics. We are holding it joint between the optics and logic teams as a number of these topics relate across both areas.

The goal will be to enable contributors to better refine proposals or provide information relevant to future decisions ahead of the July Plenary meeting. With this being an ad hoc meeting, no decisions can be made but informative straw polls are possible.

At this point, we anticipate topics to potentially include:
·         Inner FEC padding and synchronization
·         FEC bypass proposal
·         Updates on IMDD optical baseline proposals (nothing adopted yet)
·         Updates on coherent optical baseline proposals (nothing adopted yet here too)
But this is not a complete list of potential topics.

If anyone, does wish to make a short presentation in line with above please make a request by the dates noted above. Please email myself, Mark Gustlin (and John D'Ambrosia, please) the following information:
Name of presenter
Affiliation of presenter
Title of presentation
Length of time requested (this should include time for questions and answers – presentation time, excluding Q&A, will be at the discretion of the chair, and should be assumed to be limited to 30 min)
Brief description of topic

The presenter shall e-mail a PDF, soft-copy version of the presentation to me (and John D'Ambrosia, please) in advance of the meeting per above dates..

All individuals submitting presentations should review the Procedures for Presenters Page: http://www.ieee802.org/3/df/public/presentproc.html

Please adhere to the Presentation Style Guidelines. Also, to support the web site search tool used by the IEEE P802.3 web site the 'Document Information' fields of the PDF file must be completed as follows:
Title: Title of presentation
Author: Name(s) of author(s)
Subject: IEEE P802.3dj Task Force

I want to remind all teleconference meeting participants to review the following documents prior to participation in an IEEE 802.3 meeting teleconference:
IEEE SA patent policy
IEEE SA Copyright Policy
IEEE SA Participation Policy

All of these policies may be found at http://ieee802.org/3/policies.html

Thanks,

Mark N
IEEE P802.3dj optics track leader
And
Mark G
IEEE P802.3dj architecture and logic track leader
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1