RE: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO IT NOW !!!)
All-
Item 1: I support my Task Force Chair's decision for Sacramento.
Item 2: I sort of support Bob Grow's position (see more after)
>The motion passed by the Exec was "802 will organize a no-host (w/MTG fee)
>basis a meeting for May 14-18, 2001 for 802 WG & TF interim MTGS". Though
>gramatically tortuous, it was discussed as an experiment for all of 802.
>(Even this is a violation of the LMSC rules Prodecure 1, where treasury
>usage for meetings is only authorized for Plenary sessions.)
>
>I view Option #2 as (dare I say it) changing the rules after the vote is
>taken. As Treasurer, it is my fiducary duty to make sure an expendature of
>this sort is formally authorized by the Exec, especially since it is a
>varience to the rules governing the treasury. I don't accept Option #2 as
>within the intent of the approved motion.
>
>--Bob Grow
I believe that the result of that is the following:
The only "fair" way out is for the Orlando meeting to go forward but based
on a meeting attendance fee or a host, not on the use of funds from the
"ALL 802" treasury.
- or -
That if Orlando is going to be subsidized by 802 then the Sacramento
meeting should be subsidized to the same extent.
However, my read of the motion is that the 802 Treasury would not be used
and that the "w/MTG fee" funds would not be part of the 802 Treasury. The
fact that this would not be an all 802 meeting makes this even more true.
Roger should spend down any Orlando surplus on (Mickey Mouse) cookies.
Geoff
At 05:09 PM 11/29/00 -0800, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
>OK, I think this is official at this point. With the input from 802.3
>now in we have all WGs voting for Option #2, with Bob Grow voting for #1
>or #3 only. By the 1-man 1-vote rule that gives us the following results:
>
>Option #1 = 0.5
>
>Option #2 = 900+
>
>Option #3 = 0.5
>
>So Option #2 is the clear winner - (Sorry Bob, we all know it was a vote
>on principle! - Like a Nader/Buchanan vote!).
>
>Now: If the 802.1 and 802.17 WGs would, in fact, prefer to meet with the
>802.3 WG in Sacramento
>(as has been rumored), we will need the following items within the next 48
>hours:
>
>* An email from Dawson Kesling of Intel, the Sacramento Host,
>indicating that they are willing and able to accommodate the additional
>130 people from the 802.1 and 802.17 WGs, and will adjust their room
>block, function space, and food & beverage arrangements accordingly.
>
>* An email to Dawn and myself from each of the 802.1 and 802.17 WG
>chairs (Tony & Mike) requesting that such a change be made contingent on
>the first point being satisfied.
>
>So that's it !!! Let's GET IT ON !!! :-)
>
>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: Steve Carlson[SMTP:scarlson@hspdesign.com]
> > Reply To: scarlson@hspdesign.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:06 PM
> > To: Rigsbee, Everett O
> > Cc: Howard Frazier; Jonathan. Thatcher; Geoffrey Thompson; Dawn C.
> Slykhouse; tony@jeffree.co.uk; dawson.w.kesling@intel.com
> > Subject: RE: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That
> means DO IT NOW !!!)
> >
> > Buzz-
> > I have been in touch with Howard and Jonathan. All of us vote for
> > Sacramento. We have e-mail from 802.1 indicating that they will go
> where 802.3 goes.
> > Consider this as 802.3's response. Option #2 it is.
> > Thanks and regards,
> > Steven B. Carlson
> > President
> > Co-Chair, ESTA Control Protocols Working Group
> > Chair, ESTA ACN Task Group
> > http://www.esta.org
> > Chair, IEEE 802.3af DTE Power via MDI Task Force
> > http://www.ieee802.org/3/af/index.html
> > High Speed Design, Inc.
> > 11929 NW Old Quarry Road
> > Portland, OR 97229
> > 503.626.4206
> > FAX 503.626.4206
> > scarlson@hspdesign.com
> > From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:Everett.Rigsbee@PSS.Boeing.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 2:52 PM
> > To: scarlson@hspdesign.com
> > Subject: FW: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO
> IT NOW !!!)
> > Steve, Here it is !!!
> > 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
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:37 AM
> > > To: '802 Exec'
> > > Cc: '802 @F2F Dawn S'; '802 @F2F Darcel Moro'; 'Caroline R.
> Armstrong';
> > 'Kesling, Dawson W'
> > > Subject: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means
> DO IT NOW !!!)
> > > 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 sho> uld 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>
> >