RE: Proposal to move the SEC meeting to Friday
I want to offer my strong support for Howard's proposal as well as my
agreement with his rationale. As some of you are aware, I have been a
voting member in various Working Groups over the last two decades. One
thing that has been a consistent problem in all five of those Working Groups
is the limited time for technical work during the plenary week.
Our attendance has doubled in the last two years, primarily because of the
number of active major projects. We owe these people a more productive work
week. One of our objectives should be to decrease the time required to
produce quality standards. Moving the closing Executive Committee meeting
to Friday morning will aid in that objective.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Frazier [mailto:millardo@dominetsystems.com]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 3:34 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Proposal to move the SEC meeting to Friday
Dear members of the SEC,
I would like to enlist your support for moving the closing SEC meeting
from Thursday evening to Friday morning. This change would become
effective at the July, 2001 meeting of 802.
The rationale for the change is:
1) Working Groups need more time to conduct their business.
Moving the SEC meeting from Thursday evening to Friday morning would
allow WGs to meet until late in the day on Thursday if necessary.
While some Working Groups do this under the current schedule, others
find it difficult to conclude their business on Thursday afternoon and
then get ready for an SEC meeting on Thursday night.
2) SEC members would have more time to prepare for the meeting.
During my tenure as Recording Secretary, I have noticed that virtually
all of you could use more time to prepare for the SEC meeting, and I
think that this additional time for preparation would make the SEC meetings
much more effective, and much more efficient.
3) With the elimination of the Friday 802 closing plenary meeting, nothing
stands in our way except your consent, and the clean up work of changing our
rules.
I understand that a rules change will be required in order to make this
change permanent. However, I believe that with the concurrence
of the SEC, we can announce the change in March, put the change into
effect in July, and ratify the rules change in due course, just as
we did with the elimination of the closing plenary. Specific rules change
text to deal with 5.1.5.2.3, and Procedure 5 Item 7 will be proposed
at the March meeting.
I ask your support for this change, in the hopes of making the IEEE 802 LMSC
a more effective standards development committee.
Howard Frazier