Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
Colleagues:
My point was that this should not be called an "802.3 RE Study Group ad
hoc meeting". If you want to call it an ad hoc on residential Ethernet
that is your perogative. As Chair though I attempt to make sure we are
following the rules. If this were a study group meeting it has to be
properly called per our rules. It is not anyone's perogative to in any
way indicate that an informal gathering of people is an 802.3 or RE
Study Group sanctioned meeting, which is implied by the title given and
reinforced by the use of the RESG reflector.
Personally (Bob Grow, not the Chair of 802.3), I think using the study
group reflector for this kind of thing puts the group on a slipery
slope, because you then have to start making judgements about other
meeting announcements:
1. Is it explicitly clear that the meeting isn't WG or SG sacntiones?
2. Does the meeting meet IEEE requirements for openness (e.g., not an
announcement of an "XYZ Alliance meeting)?
3. Is the meeting announcment in all other ways consistent with IEEE
requirements and with our published reflector policy?
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of Shvodian William-r63101
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 7:20 AM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
David, The 802.3 task force meeting requirements are documented in the
802.3 rules:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/rules/index.html
3.4.3 Task Force Chair's Responsibilities
The main responsibility of the TF Chair is to ensure the production, and
to guide through the approval and publication process, a draft standard,
recommended practice or guideline, or revision to an existing document
as defined by the relevant PAR. The responsibilities include:
a)Call meetings and issue a notice and agenda for each meeting at least
30 days prior to the meeting.
...
Study groups have the same basic rules:
4.4 Study Group Operation
Study groups follow the operating procedures for Task Forces specified
above with the following exceptions detailed below.
I would suggest calling this an "unofficial RE meeting" to be safe for
now, but in the future 30 days notice would be best for any meetings.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of David V James
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:19 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
Bob,
I'm a bit confused. My assumption (from 802.17 experience) is that an
adhoc is just that: an adhoc group of people meeting for whatever
purpose they desire. In that environment, there was no formal
requirement to obtain permissions.
From what I gather, 802.3 has a more formal definition of "adhoc".
Both appear to be consistent with m-w.com:
adhoc : for the particular end or case at hand without
consideration of wider application
To avoid future abuses of the 802.3 specific definition, can you provide
a URL to rules/procedures that describe the use of "adhoc"
within 802.3?
Any preferences on the following wording alternatives? I would like to
include the term RE, as that is the subject of the meeting, without
implying the meeting is RE sanctioned.
informal RE meeting
RE rendezvous
nonbinding RE meeting
nonbinding RE get-together
RE discussion meeting
RE get-together
Before I send the correcting meeting announcement, I would like to have
advice on which wording is "safe". If these appear to have problems,
alternatives would be appreciated.
Appreciation in advance,
DVJ
David V. James
3180 South Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: +1.650.494.0926
+1.650.856.9801
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.360.242.5508
Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:44 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE adhoc meeting announcement
>>
>>
>> Colleagues:
>>
>> It is not appropriate to call this meeting an RE adhoc. It has no
>> status as an authorized 802.3 activity. IEEE 802.3 rules do allow a
>> Chair to call a meeting with 30 day notice. This activity does not
>> meet these requirements either in notice period or the party calling
>> the meeting. Ad hocs are chartered by the SG or its officers.
>>
>> We do encourage people to generate concensus outside 802.3 meetings,
>> but DO NOT represent this as an RESG ad hoc meeting.
>>
>> Bob Grow
>> Chair, IEEE 802.3
>> bob.grow@ieee.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-re@ieee.org
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-re@ieee.org]
>> On Behalf Of David V James
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:10 PM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: [RE] Monday RE adhoc meeting announcement
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Tom Dineen has proposed the following agenda for a between meeting
>> adhoc, which I have volunteered to host:
>>
>> Monday, 2005Feb28
>> 802.3 RE Study Group adhoc meeting
>> 3180 South Court, Palo Alto, CA
>>
>> From my perspective, the intent is to help focus between meeting
>> activities, but not to make decisions.
>>
>> By working on details between meetings, (hopefully) the valuable
>> meeting time can be used more efficiently.
>>
>> At Tom's request, I will be hosting the meeting at my residence,
>> which is easy to reserve on short notice.
>> The date is:
>>
>> The meeting schedule is as follows:
>> 12:30 - 13:00 PST Hamburgers for the attendees
>> 13:00 - 17:00 PST Meeting discussions
>>
>> Please contact me (by Friday) if you wish to have teleconferencing
>> facilities, which I will then arrange call-in facilities based on the
>> number RSVPs.
>>
>> A door prize will be given to one of those attending, who can also
>> answer the riddle of:
>> 1) Which of "South" or "Court" can be abbreviated?
>> 2) Why?
>>
>> DVJ
>>
>> David V. James
>> 3180 South Ct
>> Palo Alto, CA 94306
>> Home: +1.650.494.0926
>> +1.650.856.9801
>> Cell: +1.650.954.6906
>> Fax: +1.360.242.5508
>> Base: dvj@alum.mit.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Thomas Dineen [mailto:tdineen@ix.netcom.com]
>> >> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 4:30 PM
>> >> To: Thomas Dineen
>> >> Cc: Michael D. Johas Teener; David James; Tom Mathey, Gail McCoy;
>> George
>> >> Claseman
>> >> Subject: Draft Agenda For Meeting
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Gentlemen:
>> >>
>> >> Please note this is just a draft and not met to be in any way
>> >> exclusionary. Feel free to suggest additional items.
>> >>
>> >> Lets consider starting the meeting at 1:00 PM, working through
>> >> early evening, and then adjourning to Fish Market for Beer and
>> >> Dinner?
>> >>
>> >> Also feel free to expand the email scope of invitees.
>> >>
>> >> 1) Review Of Draft Presentations
>> >> - Subscription Protocol
>> >> - Time Distribution Protocol
>> >> - Queuing Protocol
>> >> -Others?
>> >>
>> >> 2) Review Of Terminology
>> >> - Presentations?
>> >> - Issues?
>> >>
>> >> 3) Review Of Architecture Proposals
>> >> - Presentations? Anyone?
>> >> - Discussion Of Architectural Concepts from any and all
>> attendees.
>> >> - I will attempt to capture the various concepts in a
>> presentation
>> >> of the various competing Ideas.
>> >>
>> >> 4) Discussion of the 802.3 versus 802.1 work split.
>> >>
>> >> 5) Other Issues?
>> >>
>> >> Thomas Dineen
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>