Fw: We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO IT NOW !!!)
The attached note should have gone to the reflector, not just to Jim.
Sorry.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 720 222-0900
----- Original Message -----
From: RDLove <rdlove@nc.rr.com>
To: <jcarlo@ti.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO IT NOW !!!)
> I vote for Orlando for 802.17. (Mike, speak up if you disagree). Our
last
> and next interim are both in California. There have already been some
> grumblings that the group would like to get to another section of the
> country to balance out the travel for those coming from Europe and from
the
> East coast.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert D. Love
> President, LAN Connect Consultants
> 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 720 222-0900
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Carlo <jcarlo@ti.com>
> To: IEEE802 <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:43 PM
> Subject: We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO IT NOW !!!)
>
>
> >
> > Based on the 13 emails so far:
> >
> > 1) Is the Sacramento proposal for the same dates as the Orlando
proposal?
> >
> > 2) Does 802.3 want to go to Orlando or Sacramento. Geoff, suggest you
poll
> > your Task Force and Study Group chairs.
> >
> > 3) I can conduct an email ballot starting tomorrow and close quickly.
> >
> > Jim Carlo(jcarlo@ti.com) Cellular:1-214-693-1776
Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
> > TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
> > Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
> > Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]On
> > Behalf Of Rigsbee, Everett O
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 3:31 PM
> > To: 802 Howard Frazier
> > Cc: 802 Exec; 802 @F2F Dawn S; 802 @F2F Darcel Moro; Caroline R.
> > Armstrong; Kesling, Dawson W
> > Subject: RE: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO
> > IT NOW !!!)
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, Yes, I'm losing my mind. I can see the "dot1" right there on the
> next
> > line.
> > Soooo ... Never Mind !!! I better move to Flori-Duh !!! :-)
> > Thanx, Buzz
> > Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> > Boeing SSG
> > PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> > Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> > ph: (425) 865-2443, fx: (425) 865-6721
> > email: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Rigsbee, Everett O[SMTP:Everett.Rigsbee@pss.boeing.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:16 PM
> > > To: Buzz@PSS; 802 Howard Frazier
> > > Cc: 802 Exec; 802 @F2F Dawn S; 802 @F2F Darcel Moro; Caroline R.
> > Armstrong; Kesling, Dawson W
> > > Subject: RE: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means
> DO
> > IT NOW !!!)
> > >
> > > Howard, I'm a bit surprised you wouldn't include 802.1 in "802
> Classic."
> > > I certainly would. You can't get much more Classic than 802.1. :-)
> > > Such an arrangement would be entirely up to the host and the choice of
> > > the individual WG's. Other than your suggestion, I've had no
indication
> > > from anyone else that such a plan would be desirable or acceptable.
> > > If you want to stump for your own plan, go right ahead, but be
> forewarned
> > ...
> > > we're not going to do any Florida recounts, No Way !!! :-)
> > > Thanx, Buzz
> > > Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> > > Boeing SSG
> > > PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> > > Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> > > ph: (425) 865-2443, fx: (425) 865-6721
> > > email: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> > > > ----------
> > > > From: Howard Frazier[SMTP:millardo@dominetsystems.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:17 PM
> > > > To: Rigsbee, Everett O
> > > > Cc: 802 Exec; 802 @F2F Dawn S; 802 @F2F Darcel Moro; Caroline R.
> > Armstrong; Kesling, Dawson W
> > > > Subject: Re: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That
means
> > DO IT NOW !!!)
> > > > Buzz,
> > > > I suggest option 2, but divided along the lines of "wireless" in
> > Orlando,
> > > > and "802 Classic" in Sac'to, assuming that Intel would be willing to
> > host
> > > > dot3, dot17, and dot1.
> > > > Howard
> > > > "Rigsbee, Everett O" wrote:
> > > > > Dear SEC: OK here's the pitch for the May Interim. Please
> response
> > ASAP !!!
> > > > > After some rather intensive searching of the Orlando area for a
> > suitable venue (and checking other Eastern locations as well) we've
> finally
> > come up with something that looks workable, but we need to make an
> immediate
> > decision as to how we want to go.
> > > > > We have found 2nd option availability at the Hyatt Orlando in
> > Kissimmee, FL (a resort property ~1.5 miles from Walt Disney World).
> > During our week of May 14-19, 2001, they can offer us up to 625 of their
> 922
> > rooms per night and there's a large Radisson right nearby which could
> > provide any necessary overflow rooms and/or meeting space. The Hyatt
> > Orlando has a good selection of meeting space, all centrally located,
and
> > almost all of it is currently available (only a couple of the smaller
> rooms
> > are currently booked). We believe there is enough space to do all the
> > meetings for an Interim meeting for all of our Working Groups. The
group
> > rate they are offering is $119/129 S/D. Their pricings for Food &
> > Beverage, Audio Visual, and Miscellaneous services look to be very
> > competitive for the area. You can check out all the details of the
> property
> > at their website at:
> > > > > http://www.hyatt.com/usa/kissimmee/hotels/hotel_mcoor.html
> > > > > OK, so what's this 2nd option business all about ??? This means
> there
> > is another group who has asked Hyatt Orlando to hold space for their
> > function during that same week, but they have not committed to sign a
> > contract yet. How it works is as follows: if we sign a 2nd option
> contract
> > for the dates we want, the other group is given 72 hours to either sign
> > their contract or release the space (and we're in). The probabilities
are
> > good that if we act now we WILL get the space. The problem is that we
> have
> > a nice gentleman from Intel, (Dawson Kesling) who has offered to host an
> > 802.3 Interim meeting at the Hyatt Sacramento, who is holding space
there
> > and he is being pressured to sign a contract or risk losing the space.
If
> > he loses the space and the other group signs the contract at Hyatt
> Orlando,
> > then we're back to square zero.>
> > > > > So I see 3 possible options for us to choose from:
> > > > > Option #1: We say, "Go for it!" We sign the contract for the
full
> > meeting and we'll know in 72 hours whether we have a site or not. We
tell
> > Dawson, "Thank you very much for your offer and we'll hope to have you
> host
> > a meeting in the future." If we strikeout at Hyatt Orlando, we go back
> and
> > look at several other back-up properties to get the deal we need (we
> > currently have several, but only 1 is in the Orlando area).>
> > > > > Option #2: We divide the meeting. We let 802.3 go ahead and do
> their
> > own thing at the Hyatt Sacramento and we do everybody else at Hyatt
> Orlando
> > (if we can get in). We can reduce the room block to 500, we will
> certainly
> > have plenty of meeting space, and we won't need to worry about overflow
> > space. OK so it's not a fully co-located 802-Hosted Interim meeting,
but
> we
> > said this was an experiment to see how it works. It probably best to
> start
> > off with a more manageable-sized group anyway.>
> > > > > Option #3: We blow-off the 802-Hosted May Interim meeting
> completely,
> > every WG does their own thing with their own hosts, and we think about
> maybe
> > trying this again sometime in the future.
> > > > > I'm going to go out on a limb here and recommend Option #2 for
your
> > consideration, since it seems to get us a trial run and we take on the
> least
> > risk, but the choice really belongs to the WG chairs who have to survive
> > these meetings. I also think we should weight the voting on this by the
> > size of the constituency (as recorded at Tampa) since I'm a believer in
> > 1-man, 1-vote, and we're trying to do what's right for the greatest
number
> > of people here (note: this implies the vote for an SEC member with no WG
> > would count 1).
> > > > > Whatever you decide (i.e. Option #1, 2, or 3), you must send me
you
> > response TODAY because we risk losing all if we don't decide right away.
> In
> > the unlikely event of a tie vote, I flip a coin to see who wins. Please
> > decide now !!! Later will be TOO LATE and you'll wind up with Option #3
> by
> > default. You may call or send email to Dawn or myself if you have any
> > burning questions but please don't bother with suggesting other Options
> > which we have overlooked/forgotten. What you see is what you get.
Tempus
> > Fugit !!!
> > > > > We await your response. :-)
> > > > > Thanx, Buzz
> > > > > Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> > > > > Boeing SSG
> > > > > PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> > > > > Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> > > > > ph: (425) 865-2443, fx: (425) 865-6721
> > > > > email: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> > > > > Thanx, Buzz
> > > > > Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> > > > > Boeing SSG
> > > > > PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> > > > > Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> > > > > ph: (425) 865-2443, fx: (425) 865-6721
> > > > > email: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>