| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Buzz/Roger - Much as I would like to agree with you, I don't believe that the fact that we collected the money over 2 years means that we have paid for 2 years of program in any contractual sense - the Escrowed money from the first year was part of what we paid to get the whole process started in its first year, and I believe we understood that at the time. I think there are other factors - such as the not inconsiderable income that accrues to the IEEE from selling OIDs on the back of 802 technology, to name but one - which, along with the ongoing $75/head tax, should mean that the BoG should feel obliged to treat us well in regard to the continued running of the program, but that is a different matter, and no doubt our negotiators are using such arguments in their discussions. Actually, in the case of Standard 802, I am very comfortable with the idea that the 1990 edition is no longer available for free; the 2001 edition has been a long time coming, has some important stuff to say that wasn't in the 1990 edition, and the sooner it gets out there & gets read the better. The only aspect of Standard 802's availability that is annoying is that if we hadn't suffered the trademarks etc. debacle, it would already be on the free list by now. I agree with you that there is lots of stuff that will need fixing if the program is to continue - and by the sound of Geoff's comments, the "if" may be significant here. However, having cried "Foul" at the actions of the BoG in closing the program down prematurely, I think that we have little option but to keep our end of the bargain, at least as long as it takes to see what, if anything, can be salvaged after the anniversary is up in mid-May. I also agree with you that we have seen way too little detail so far with regard to run rates, etc., and in particular, what effect significant events (such as the publication of 802.3-2002) have on the revenue patterns. The other important factor in making any meaningful assessment of what it takes to support the program would be to have access to the IEEE's real costs of supporting/publishing 802 standards. Regards, Tony At 13:25 09/04/2002 -0700, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote: >Colleagues, I'd like to second Roger's thoughts on this and point out that >we have the same problem with the 802-2001 Overview and Architecture >document. >Since the new edition was approved, the old edition has been removed and the >only option is to purchase the new edition. >Clearly it would be better if the old edition were still available during >the 6-7 month window together with a link to purchase the new edition if you >want it. >The current policy would seem to penalize groups like 802.3 that prefer to >keep everything together in one specification because each time an update is >made the entire set of standards become unavailable for another 6 months. >This would seem to favor doing all work as add-on supplements leading to >highly fragmented standards, which I don't think we want to encourage. > >I also agree with Roger that it appears we've paid for two years support and >only gotten one. > >If we're going to continue this program, there are several matters which >will need to be adjusted to make it acceptable on an ongoing basis. > >I don't think the current numbers which we've seen show enough detail to >make any meaningful predictions about viability. >Bill Quackenbush is right we really need to see monthly run rates to see if >there are meaningful trends or not. > > >Thanx, Buzz >Dr. 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 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org] >Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 12:19 PM >To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Get802 program has been restored to former terms and >conditions through May 15 > > >(1) I don't see a need to pro-rate our contribution. The breakage of >the agreement affected the operation of the program for 0 days. > >(2) I don't see how the existence of 802.3-2002, which is not in >GetIEEE802, would stimulate the removal of 802.3-2000 from >GetIEEE802. Obviously, our agreement with IEEE-SA doesn't specific >every detail, but this is one that I find to be well outside my >expectations. > >(3) Since Mr. Thompson expresses concern for the program beyond May >15, I think we need to ask very carefully what we really get for our >money. If the program simply terminates, then the whole argument we >had at the last meeting is moot. In other words, the question of >whether the delay is 6 month or 12 months is irrelevant unless the >program operates at least six more months. If the program closes on >May 15, then we will be getting nothing at all for our money. In that >case, the only reason to give it away it because we have a commitment >to do so. Do we? I can't tell. Regarding that issue: > >(4) I'd like to see the specific escrow motion we passed on March 15. >I don't think the minutes are out yet. > >(5) I'd like a Treasurer's analysis of the following: > >When we started the program a year ago, the basic idea was for us to >contribute $75/person/meeting on a continuing basis. However, we also >kicked in some older escrowed funds amounting to, I believe, two >meetings. Since the program was planned as a three-year pilot, I >understood that the escrowed funds were to supplement the program >over the three-year startup phase. > >If I have my math right, the current proposed motion is to forward >the fee for the fourth meeting since we agreed to start the program. >Adding in the two escrowed meetings, I calculate that, if the motion >passes, we will be in for six meetings worth of donations. Now, if >the program ends on May 15, we will have gotten for our money exactly >one year of distribution. This means that we will have effectively >paid double: $75/person/meeting for six meetings, in return for one >year of distribution. Bob and/or Bill: do I have this right? > >Roger > > >At 11:09 AM -0700 02/04/09, Geoff Thompson wrote: > >Bill- > > > >I will vote APPROVE on such a motion because I believe that it > >restores the terms of the deal that we all agreed upon. However, I > >do have some considerations. > > > >1) Mr. Frasier has expressed surprise that 802.3 will no longer be > >available. That is true and doesn't surprise me as there is a new > >REVISION that has just been published. Those voting should be aware > >of this though. > > > >2) My approve vote is with some reservations. > >I am tempted to pro-rate our contribution by the following formula > > > > ((365/3) - (Days that agreement was broken) > > ___________________________________________ > > (365/3) > > > >At this point I think our prospects for having a program after May > >15 are shaky. > > > >Geoff > > > >At 07:24 AM 4/9/02 -0700, Bill Quackenbush wrote: > > > >>All, > >> > >>Since a motion was passed by the SEC to escrow the 802 funds for the > >>Get802 program, I move the following: > >> > >> Motion: > >> > >> Now that the IEEE-SA has reinstated the Get802 program > >>according to the > >>original agreement with IEEE 802, 802 funds for the Get802 program that > >>were escrowed at the March SEC meetings are hereby released from escrow > >>for payment to the IEEE-SA according to the terms of the Get 802 > >>program agreement. > >> > >>Word smithing is welcomed. > >> > >>wlq > >> > >>Paul Nikolich wrote: > >> > > >> > Bob, > >> > > >> > Yes it does IMPLY that a check should be cut, but the SEC will have to > >> > formally vote on it before that action is taken. Bob, by your >comments I > >>> assume you and Bill would be willing to Move/Second such a motion? If >yes, > >>> will one of you please prepare a motion for SEC email ballot? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> --Paul > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com] > >>> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:59 PM > >>> To: Bill Quackenbush (E-mail) > >>> Cc: p.nikolich@ieee.org > >> > Subject: RE: [802SEC] Get802 program has been restored to former terms > >> > and conditions through May 15 > >> > > >> > Paul: > >> > > >> > Does this resolution imply that a check should be cut to IEEE-SA? > >>> > >>> Bill: > >>> > >>> I'll support your request for an SEC email ballot to release the funds >if > >>> you feel it is nessary, or equally support a decision to proceed on the > >>> restoration of the program. > >>> > >>> --Bob > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:07 AM > >>> To: 'IEEE802' > >>> Cc: 'Walker, Jerry'; k.rupp@ieee.org > >>> Subject: [802SEC] Get802 program has been restored to former terms and > >> > conditions through May 15 > >> > > >> > All, > >> > > >> > I just received a note from Jerry Walker/Karen Rupp that the > >>Get802 program > >> > has been restored by the BoG with unanimous approval (see below). > >>> > >>> Please note that IEEE 802 and IEEE-SA have much work ahead to > >>>figure out how > >>> to keep the program operating under the current terms and > >>>conditions. Geoff > >>> Thompson, Howard Frazier and myself are actively engaged with Jerry >Walker > >>> to identify alternatives to ensure adequate funds are in place to >maintain > >>> the program. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> --Paul Nikolich > >>> > >>> Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Project > >>> email: p.nikolich@ieee.org > >>> cell: 857.205.0050 > >>> mail: 18 Bishops Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940 > >>> > >>> > >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--- > >>> ---------- > >>> Karen Rupp > >>> To: sa-bog@ieee.org 04/01/2002 > >>> cc: Jerome Walker/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE@IEEE > >>> Subject: Ballot Approved > >>> > >>> All, > >>> As an FYI, the motion below was approved with100% unanimous approval/ > >>> return as of today, 1 April. > >>> Thank you for your quick response, > >>> Karen > >>> > >>> Move to delay implementing the above motion until May 15, which is the > >>> one-year anniversary date for the program. Additionally, the newly >formed > >>> 802 Task Force shall provide by 30 April 2002, a mutually agreed upon > >>> proposal for proceeding with the program, to the BOG for their > >>> consideration. > >>> > >>> Karen A. Rupp > >>> Associate Managing Director, > >>> Business Administration > >>> IEEE Standards Activities > >>> 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331 > >>> Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331 > >>> ************************************* > >>> Phone: 1 732 562 3822 > >>> Fax: 1 732 562 1571 > >>> email: k.rupp@ieee.org > >>> ************************************* > >>> check out our website at: http://standards.ieee.org