RE: We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO IT NOW !!!)
Buzz,
Are you saying that the dates for the Sacramento meeting would be May 27 to
June 1? I didn't see that in the earlier messages? May 28 is Memorial Day.
When the question came up of a meeting week including Labor Day, the 802.3ae
task force voted against it. The situation was a little different because
that would have been a European meeting. But if the meeting starts on
Tuesday, people will be having to travel on Memorial Day weekend.
By 802.3 bylaws, "Depending on the work load, interim TF meetings can be
held between the P802 LMSC plenarys as often as required and agreed to by
the TF membership." Therefore, it is not right to move the meeting dates
without the agreement of the TF memberships. There is reason to believe that
the task force membership would not agree.
Since a major event, the Sacramento Jazz Festival, occurs around the
Sacramento Hyatt on Memorial Day weekend, I expect that any hotel
availability starts Monday night. So we are talking about meetings from
Wednesday to Friday and maybe Tuesday. We would not be able to do what we
are at other interims with some groups meeting Monday/Tuseday and some
Wed/Thur/Fri.
Frankly, I would prefer that the 802.3 meeting be in Sacramento, but these
dates are a problem.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:Everett.Rigsbee@PSS.Boeing.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 4:25 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; jcarlo@ti.com
Cc: 802 @F2F Dawn S; 802 @F2F Darcel Moro; 802 Jonathan Thatcher; 802
Steve Carlson (,3 SGC); Kesling, Dawson W
Subject: RE: We Need an Instantaneous Response. (That means DO IT NOW
!!!)
Jim, By your numbers:
1.) The Sacramento meeting is two weeks after the Orlando meeting (so Dawn
could easily do both).
May 27 - June 1, 2001 vs. May 13-18,
2001
2.) Geoff is out of town for 2 weeks. Steve Carlson says Geoff would leave
it up to his SubGroup chairs anyway, so Steve is running a poll of the 802.3
SGCs to see what is most preferred. He has contacted everyone but Jonathan
Thatcher and he should have that soon.
3.) We have already passed a motion in Tampa to do this meeting. So I
don't think we need another email ballot. I'm just checking preferences to
make sure we book the right thing, as far as our attendees are concerned.
So far we have Option #2 by a landslide (except for Bob Grow who wants #1 or
#3 only) with most folks agreeing that if 802.3 actually wants to come to
Orlando that Option #1 is OK too. Howard has indicated that he thinks that
802.1 and 802.17 would also want to meet in Sacramento along with 802.3. We
would need to get definite agreement from the host that they would be
willing to accommodate this, and have the 802.1 and 802.17 WG chairs
request this specific arrangement, but I have no problem with it in general.
It would give us two nearly identically-sized meetings, which would make for
a pretty fair comparison all things considered.
I hope this gets you up to speed on where we are. I need to sign the
contract tonight if at all possible.
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: Jim Carlo[SMTP:jcarlo@ti.com]
> Reply To: jcarlo@ti.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 3:43 PM
> To: IEEE802
> 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
> 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
> > >
> >
>