Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
Fine with me about date/time, David...
Dirceu Cavendish
NEC Labs America
10080 North Wolfe Road Suite SW3-350
Cupertino, CA 95014
Tel: 408-863-6041 Fax: 408-863-6099
-----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: Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:55 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
Bob:
I'm quite confused by your statement:
>> If a meeting is by-invitation only
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The issue that instigated this discussion was your concern
over an _open_ invitation posted on the reflector.
>From the email and your follow-up with our Chair, I assume
that you wish to have all informal discussion meetings _private_
and _not_ announced on the reflector.
While I am willing to use a private reflector, I don't believe
this is in the best interests of any IEEE group.
As I noted previously, I would be happy to have this discussion
at the LMSC or Procom, if you think this to be an 802 and/or
IEEE rule issue, respectively.
Since there will be no more announcements before the Atlanta
meeting, I believe that review date will be acceptable to all.
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: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:39 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
>>
>>
>> David:
>>
>> Yes we encourage between meeting work, though we can encourage
without
>> facilitating them. If a meeting is by-invitation only, it does not
meet
>> IEEE requirements for openness and therefore is not appropriate for
>> posting on the reflector. We still encourage those meetings to
generate
>> consensus in support of 802.3 work by an alliance, but we have asked
>> alliances formed in support of 802.3 work (e.g., Gigabit Ethernet
>> Alliance, 10 Gigabit Ethernet Alliance, Ethernet in the First Mile
>> Alliance) to not announce their meetings on IEEE reflectors.
Similarly,
>> if companies want to get together to see if they can agree on things
>> that is fine. The alliance meetings, or multi-company meetings
though
>> are not 802.3 meetings.
>>
>> Colleagues:
>>
>> Had the original announcement included the text you provided this
>> morning clearly indicating that the meeting was not an official SG
>> meeting the group would never have gone down this rat hole. The fact
>> that so much time has been consumed on this though is another
argument
>> why such announcements on reflectors can become a problem.
>>
>> I don't have either RROR or a dictionary handy, but within 802.3 we
>> generally use ad hoc in conjunction with the WG and/or SG/TF
>> identification only for meetings chartered by the group for a
specific
>> purpose. Alternate uses of ad hoc without implication of WG or SG/TF
>> sponsorship is fine. I did not point to anything in the rules about
ad
>> hoc, because I had no objection to (pick your preferred form) "ad
hoc"
>> or "adhoc".
>>
>> I am not the person responsible for monitoring this reflector, and I
>> leave a lot of latitude it to each SG/TF and usually rely on the
SG/TF
>> Chair to assure their reflector is appropriately used. Similarly, I
>> would not attempt to tell Mr. Tafekman that my personal preferences
for
>> appropriate traffic should be adopted by 802.17 (except where it
>> contradicts IEEE P&P); nor did I think that my clearly indicated
>> personal opinion about such announcements placing a reflector on a
>> slippery slope would be interpreted as a position of 802.3 as you
seem
>> to have done.
>>
>> Can we PLEASE let this thread die!
>>
>> --Bob
>>
>> P.s. My apologies for failure to run spell check and for incomplete
>> sentences. I've focused on an IEEE Executive Committee
teleconference
>> and a duly-noticed IEEE P802.3an Task Force interim meeting while
>> multiplexing to do a little email.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----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: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:38 AM
>> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [RE] Monday RE discussion announcement
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> I continue to be confused.
>>
>> Does 802.3 indeed wish to encourage between-meeting discussions?
>> I know that 802.17 encouraged such adhoc meetings, as well as
>> encouraging the use of their reflector. The intent (as I understood
>> it) was to allow birds-of-a-feather meetings to be attended by
>> and/all, so the maximum amount of progress could be obtained.
>>
>> 802.17 also had private by-invitation only meetings at
>> the beginning. Both served useful purposes and helped hard
>> problems (and extensive proposed editing changes) to be
>> solved in a timely fashion.
>>
>> Other comments follow.
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> I did not find the name "adhoc" mentioned in the 802.3 rules, nor did
>> you (as requested) provide a reference to text I may have missed.
>>
>> As such, I assume there is really no concern with the use of the word
>> "adhoc", as your initial text seemed to imply. But, I will take your
>> suggested name "Adhoc on Residential Ethernet" as a title for future
>> announcements.
>>
>>
>> >> 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
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I think we resolved the nomenclature problem.
>>
>>
>> >> given and reinforced by the use of the RESG reflector.
>> Its hard to provide opportunities to interested parties,
>> if one is denied access to them.
>>
>>
>> >> Personally (Bob Grow, not the Chair of 802.3),
>> Personally (David James, a non-paid individual contributor),
>> I think that open offline discussions should be encouraged,
>> not discouraged.
>>
>>
>> >> 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
>> ^^^^^^^ slippery
>> >> making judgements about other meeting announcements:
>> Its unclear why anyone has to make any judgments. Simple announcments
>> that offer opportunities for discussion don't seem to threaten the
>> integrity of the reflector.
>>
>>
>> >> 1. Is it explicitly clear that the meeting isn't WG or SG
>> sacntiones?
>> sanctions
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> Using a standard terminology eliminates this problem, so this is
solved.
>> As noted previously, such future meetings will be called:
>> "Adhoc on Residential Ethernet"
>>
>>
>> >> 2. Does the meeting meet IEEE requirements for openness (e.g.,
not
>> an
>> >> announcement of an "XYZ Alliance meeting)?
>> Doesn't matter, since its not an official IEEE meeting.
>>
>> I prefer to be as open as possible.
>> Some big companies prefer to work only between themselves.
>> I see little harm in encouraging both between-meeting alternatives.
>>
>>
>> >> 3. Is the meeting announcment in all other ways consistent with
>> IEEE
>> >> requirements and with our published reflector policy?
>> There didn't seem to be any conflicts with the "published reflector
>> policy".
>> Can you identify any conflicts that you might have observed? In the
>> absence
>> of a specific identified concern, its difficult to resolve your
>> concerns.
>>
>> I suspect this would be a good topic to place on the LMSC agenda?
>> As a member, could you enter this one the agenda?
>> Procom is also meeting in Atlanta, if that option is preferred.
>>
>> DVJ
>>
>> David V. James
>> 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: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:38 AM
>> >> To: STDS-802-3-RE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> >> Subject: 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
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>