RE: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
Buzz:
Please don't put word into my mouth, you totally missed or misinterpreted my
fundamental concerns. The conclusion you attribute to me (I'll let Geoff
speak for himself) while a good propaganda technique is totally wrong.
This now approved meeting is an experiment, it was originally to support all
working groups, and with the time pressures you introduced, 802.3 was "opted
out" of the 802 hosted interim without the opportunity to thoughtfully
evaluate the alternatives and implications. The last position I saw was
that the 802.3 would have prefered to "opt in" on the interim meeting, since
date was more important than venue and the 802 hosted meeting was 802.3ae's
second choice while the Intel hosted alternative was its third choice.
If we had meeting dates fairly picked in a way representative of the
attendees (not just the majority of working groups), then I would expect the
opting in or out to be relatively fair. This though fair, still creates a
logistical problem because of the disproportionate size of our working
groups. 802.3 opting in or out is much more of a problem for meeting
planning than for any other working group (especially for the room block).
802.3 has recently represented ~50% of plenary meeting attendance, and has
on its own been coping with the problems of its size in planning interim
meetings. The other historical ~50% representing the wireless working
groups has been less comfortable coping with meeting planning for a group of
similar size. I recognize that part of this results from economy of scale
(802.3 requiring less than a third as many rooms and projectors as the
wireless groups), but the size of 802.3ae meetings obviously creats a
different set of restrictions on 802.3's interim meeting locations. It is
not yet clear what RPR and Ethernet in the First Mile will do to this almost
even balance between 802.3 and the rest of 802, but the percentages will not
likely change significantly.
This large imbalance makes me concerned about the financial risks resulting
from one WG opting out. I also am not convinced that we have a method that
will fairly weight the preference for meeting dates. As things are now
structured, I expect the larger WGs to be disproportionally forced to opt
out from a meeting because of non-optimal meeting dates. This reinforces my
concerns about the financial risks to the 802 Treasury.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:Everett.Rigsbee@PSS.Boeing.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 4:38 PM
To: 802 Geoff Thompson; Buzz@PSS; Grow, Bob
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; 802 @F2F Dawn S; 802 @F2F Darcel Moro
Subject: RE: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
OK Bob, So what you and Geoff are saying is that unless every WG in 802
chooses to participate in an 802-Hosted interim, it's not possible to hold
one.
If this is your firm and unalterable position on the matter, then we
probably
ought to bag this notion entirely because it's not possible to plan anything
on
that basis. There will always be some WG that has a legitimate reason for
wanting to meet separately. My personal view is along the same lines as
Bob Love's. That all groups are invited to participate, to help choose the
week, and if they instead choose to seek a separately hosted meeting, that
should not prevent the other WG's from participating in an 802-hosted
interim.
Every group would have a fair and equal chance and they get to choose
their preference. They can opt in or opt out, but I don't think they should
have the right to spoil it for all the groups that do want to participate.
That seems really unfair to me !!! :-)
As soon as we have a WG that doesn't want/need to hold interim meetings
we're finished. So why even bother ???
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: Grow, Bob[SMTP:bob.grow@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:17 AM
> To: 'Geoff Thompson'; Rigsbee, Everett O
> Cc: stds-802-sec; 802 @F2F Dawn S; 802 @F2F Darcel Moro
> Subject: RE: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
> Geoff's conclusion that I expressed an equivalent objection is correct.
The
> fairness issue is fundamental to my concern on how this has evolved. Use
> of the good faith and credit of the 802 treasury is something that has
been
> denied for interim meetings in the past and in the current plan is
inequitably applied.
> --Bob
> From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:03 PM
> To: Rigsbee, Everett O
> Cc: stds-802-sec; 802 @F2F Dawn S; 802 @F2F Darcel Moro
> Subject: RE: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
> Buzz-
> I do understand that the PLAN is to net zero.
> However, according to the motion, the 802 treasury is standing behind the
> Orlando meeting to the tune of
> 1) Guaranteeing that it will happen.
> 2) Covering any shortfall
> 3) ??
> It is not providing the same for other meetings.
> That is not equitable and is to the disadvantage of the roughly half of
the
> 802 membership who depend on me to represent them.
> I believe that this is in line with the point that Bob Grow made earlier.
> Geoff
> At 11:36 AM 12/4/00 -0800, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
> >Geoff, I think you are misunderstanding the proposal. All of the
expenses
> >for the Orlando meeting are being paid by the meeting fees collected from
> >the attendees (just as we do at a plenary meeting). The plan is to
tailor
> >the
> >expenses at the meeting to come out with net balance of $0. Thus there
> >will be no impact on IEEE 802 treasury. The only role being played by
> >IEEE 802 is to serve as the hosting body to make the meeting
arrangements
> >and ensure that the Hotel agreement conforms to our stand policies. The
> >meeting fees collected from the attendees will cover all of the actual
> >expenses.
> >It is possible to track and adjust expenses during the meeting so that
they
> >exactly match the funds collected. It is NOT the case that the 802
> Treasury
> >is subsidizing one meeting and not the other.
> >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: Geoff Thompson[SMTP:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 3:03 PM
> > > To: jcarlo
> > > Cc: IEEE802>
> > > Subject: Re: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
> > >
> > > In the current form I vote DISAPPROVE
> > > I cannot support such a discriminatory allocation of funds, i.e. to
the
> > > group consisting of
> > > 802.11
> > > 802.15
> > > 802.16
> > > and excluding
> > > 802.1
> > > 802.3
> > > 802.17
> > > If a more equitable arrangement is offered I would be more inclined to
> > > support it.
> > > Geoff
> > > At 04:39 PM 12/1/00 -0600, Jim Carlo wrote:
> > > >UPDATED STATUS: NOTE CURRENT MOTION WOULD PASS - PLEASE VOTE
> > > >Howard Frazier -
> > > >Bob Grow -
> > > >Paul Nikolich - Approve
> > > >Buzz Rigsbee - Approve
> > > >Vic Hayes - Approve with Comment
> > > >Tony Jeffree - Approve
> > > >Geoff Thompson -
> > > >Bob Love - Do Not Approve
> > > >Stuart Kerry - Approve
> > > >Bob Heile - Approve
> > > >Roger Marks - Approve
> > > >Jim Carlo - Chair
> > > >Stuart Kerry, who is here with me at the moment in the Netherlands
has
> > also
> > > >approved this motion. After the November 2000 motion the original
> wireless
> > > >hosts for dot11, dot15 and dot16 (ParkerVision and Intersil) have not
> > moved
> > > >forward with hotel and meeting facilities because they were convinced
> that
> > > >802 was taking care of the organization and liability issues. Vic
Hayes
> > > >I vote conditionally approve based on 802.17 being added to the list
of
> > > >working groups to meet in Orlando. Otherwise I must vote NO. This
> motion
> > > >failed to capture the spirit of the email discussion that directly
> > preceeded
> > > >it. The previous e-mail suggests that 802.17 prefers Orlando to
> > Sacramento,
> > > >directily contradicting Note 3. Will all those that have already
voted
> in
> > > >support of this motion please send an e-mail to the reflector stating
> that
> > > >you support my requested change? Thank you. Bob Love
> > > >SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/29Nov2000
> > > >Issue Date: 29Nov2000 Closing Date: 3Dec2000
> > > >Moved By: Buzz Rigsbee
> > > >Move: Approve that IEEE 802 financially back-up the commitment for
the
> > > >following Working Groups to hold their interim meeting in Orlando on
> > > >14-18May. The plan is this meeting will run on a break even financial
> > basis.
> > > >802.11
> > > >802.15
> > > >802.16
> > > >Notes:
> > > >1) 802.11, 802.15, 802.16 are committed to attend this meeting.
> > > >2) Bob Grow an I will need to have a financial report of this interim
> > > >meeting, to be prepared and presented at the SEC in July. Will work
> > out the
> > > >details in March.
> > > >3) This note is not part of the motion, and outside the scope of 802
> SEC.
> > > >However, 802.3, 802.1, 802.17 currently plan to hold a separate
> meeting,
> > > >hosted by Intel in Sacramento during the week of May 28 - June 1.
Note
> > that
> > > >this is Memorial Day weekend. Note also that this motion does not
have
> any
> > > >commitment on this meetings, just a possible plan, that might and
> probably
> > > >will change.
> > > >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
> > >
>
>