Re: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
Bob-
I am happy to take my issue to the logical extension with respect to
cookies.
Let us for the sake of discussion say that the Operating Rules of 802
said in Procedure #1 (Which they DO!) the following:
===========================================
Pay for the cost of conducting the Plenary session and other LMSC
meetings held in
conjunction with the Plenary session for:
- cost of hotel meeting rooms
- document reproduction
- meeting administration
- equipment/supplies/services needed for the efficient conduct of
business, etc.
===========================================
AND (as you suppose) my group decides (i.e. makes a specific decision)
"to go on a diet, and therefore choose not to partake of a cookie
break"
It would be my judgement as THEIR representative that:
1) There
is no specific provision in the 802 Rules (see above) to use 802 funds
for food.
2) My
group isn't interested in this expenditure or the purposes it
accomplishes.
Therefore, since it is my belief that my group does not support
charitable work for the rest of 802 that is outside the rules, my duty is
to vote no.
Moving right along to:
"The real issue here is: How do we
address the situation where a service is offered to all groups and not
all groups choose to participate? "
There is a very simple answer to this one. We have rules. We have
procedures for dealing with this. If the expenditure is within the rules
then there is no issue. If the expenditure is outside the rules then you
go through the procedure to a)change the rules -OR- b)override the
rules.
If Geoff Thompson as Chair of 802.3 thinks that a) or b) doesn't
represent the wishes of his group then he makes his vote and his case to
his colleagues during the procedure to put a) -OR- b) into place.
If Geoff Thompson as Chair of 802.3 does not do this then he must face
his group. His group has 5.1.4.5 of the procedures to use to deal with
the issue of whether or not the "Working Group or TAG feels it is
being ... significantly misrepresented by its Chair...".
The fact that you feel this issue may not be serious enough for them to
go to that extent is immaterial.
Cheers,
Geoff
At 08:38 AM 12/8/00 -0500, you wrote:
From: RDLove <rdlove@nc.rr.com>
To: "Rigsbee, Everett O"
<Everett.Rigsbee@PSS.Boeing.com>,
"Thompson, Geoff [SC5:321:EXCH]"
<gthompso@americasm06.nt.com>
Cc: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@intel.com>, stds-802-sec
<stds-802-sec@ieee.org>,
"802 @F2F Dawn S"
<dawns@facetoface-events.com>,
"802 @F2F Darcel Moro"
<dmoro@attcanada.ca>
References:
<4.2.0.58.20001207163602.00abff00@ZSC4C012.us.nortel.com>
Subject: Re: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:38:43 -0500
Geoff, let me take your issue to a logical
extension. If one working group decides that they need to go on a
diet, and therefore choose not to partake of a cookie break, then we
should withdraw 802 funds for cookies because not all groups are taking
advantage of it.
Geoff, I know the above example is overly
simplistic. It is because I believe your note also is overly
simplistic. The real issue here is: How do we address the situation
where a service is offered to all groups and not all groups choose to
participate? Yuor simply stated reply ignored that
complexity. If you feel that my wording does not accurately state
your case for the upcoming interim, please state clearly what the major
issue is in context, and then address it.
Ther is a second issue. When the 802
treasury can provide financial backing without being used, although with
some acknowledged risk, should we have any different rules for this
case. My first thoughts are that financial risk is reason enough to
lump this case with the previous one, and not use relaxed rules for
it.
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: Geoff
Thompson
To: Rigsbee,
Everett O
Cc: Grow, Bob ;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org ;
802 @F2F Dawn S ;
802 @F2F Darcel Moro
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:42 PM
Subject: RE: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
Buzz
What I believe Bob is saying and what I am saying is that to use 802
funds for the benefit of a few working groups for activities outside the
Plenary is something I will not support.
It's that simple.
Geoff
At 04:38 PM 12/5/00 -0800, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
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