RE: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO IT NOW !!!)
Bob,
While it says that 802 will organize such a meeting, it doesn't say that all
groups are required to participate. A group should be able to opt out. That
will be particularly important if we decide to do this on an ongoing basis
because sometimes the dates that are best for most groups won't fit the
process needs of a particular WG or TF.
I think the exec voting to force 802.3 to not be at the 802 no-host meeting
would be in violation of the motion. But, WGs including 802.3 committed to
attend the no-host before the vote was taking. So if 802.3 has another
opportunity, it is appropriate for them to ask whether releasing them from
the commitment causes the group a problem.
Since the meeting costs for the no-host meeting are to be largely covered by
the meeting fee paid by the attendee, I don't think there is a fairness
question in having some groups attend a hosted meeting and some attend a
no-host meeting with the 802 treasury buffering a small surplus or deficit.
Buzz has stated that 802.3 opting out will not be a problem for the no-host
meeting. Therefore, we should leave the decision up to 802.3.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:46 PM
To: 'RDLove'; Grow, Bob
Cc: 802 SEC
Subject: RE: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO
IT NOW !!!)
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
-----Original Message-----
From: RDLove [mailto:rdlove@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:23 PM
To: Grow, Bob
Cc: 802 SEC
Subject: Re: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO
IT NOW !!!)
Bob, what if the interim arrangements are available to all dot groups but
not all of them want to take advantage of it? That is kind of what we have
here. Even more important, many of the groups will be trying this out in
May. We may or may not want to do that again. If some groups do not want
to use this service in the future, is that going to cause you to want to
withdraw your support for the whole idea?
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: Grow, Bob <bob.grow@intel.com>
To: 'Rigsbee, Everett O' <Everett.Rigsbee@PSS.Boeing.com>; 802 Exec
<stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Cc: 802 @F2F Dawn S <dawns@facetoface-events.com>; 802 @F2F Darcel Moro
<dmoro@attcanada.ca>; Caroline R. Armstrong <carmstrong@imag.net>; Kesling,
Dawson W <dawson.w.kesling@intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:49 PM
Subject: RE: URGENT - We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO IT
NOW !!!)
>
> I have a concern with option #2. If I understand it correctly, we are
using
> a host for ~half of 802, and the 802 treasury for the other ~half of 802.
> This is a bad precedent, and would be yet one more thing supported by the
> 802 treasury that is not for the benefit of all of 802. I can only
support
> option #1 or option #3.
>
> --Bob Grow