Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13, 2009PlenarySession for your review
John - Excellent observations!
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Engineering Fellow
BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: John Barr [mailto:john.barr@motorola.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:13 AM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); david.bagby@IEEE.ORG;
STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
2009PlenarySession for your review
Matt,
I have provided some data for the wireless interims. As Carl correctly
pointed out, they are not really the same as plenary meetings. However,
they
do point out three interesting facts:
1. Choosing a location that is really difficult to get to without any
clear
advantage to non-NA attendees is a poor choice (Australia).
2. Holding a meeting in a nNA location that is convenient for IEEE 802
attendees from that area to attend can be well attended.
3. Some expensive locations are good once (e.g. Hawaii) but the second
time
around attendance may suffer for a variety of reasons if there is not a
good
reason to be in that location (convenient for Asia and NA but
inconvenient
for Europe with no clear local reason to be there).
Also, changes in what is being developed in the working groups will
probably
make the biggest difference in attendance. Berlin and Hawaii were big
UWB
events for 802.15 causing the remainder of 2006 and now 2007 to be
lower.
The same thing is happening in 802.11 with the completion of 802.11n
work.
These factors should be considered when possible. Planning out more than
18
months is really hard. The process needs to have controls enabled to
allow
venue commitments to be adjusted in the last 3-6 months of an event.
Regards, John Barr
On 9/14/07 6:58 AM, "Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)"
<matthew.sherman@baesystems.com> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> First, I think it is great to see non-EC members of 802 engage with
> these discussions. Often I feel not enough members of 802 get engaged
> with these things.
>
> Regarding you comments, my own opinion is that comparative data does
not
> exist within 802. We've held one '802 interim' in a non-NA venue, and
I
> don't consider it representative. Probably the closest we can come to
> example data for non-NA would be our trips to Hawaii. This location
is
> generally more expensive, and equally difficult for pretty much
everyone
> to get to being an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Perhaps
> John can pull some data comparing Hawaii with other locations, but
even
> this probably isn't a fair comparison.
>
> More important to me is our 'Charter'. As an international standards
> group I feel we have a duty to bring our group to places outside of NA
> as long as this is reasonably feasibly (even if it costs us more
money,
> or makes attendance more difficult for those who happened to be based
in
> NA). I'd rather look for an existence proof. To me that proof would
> lie with IETF. I don't attend that body, but feel they are highly
> representative of our own body. I was under the impression that they
> regularly hold meeting at Non-NA locations. I think we should ask
> people familiar with that body how things work, and consider it as a
> model for how we should work.
>
> For fun, I went to their website and pulled their meeting schedule
(see
> below). While their non-NA locations are clearly less certain, their
> intent is clear. They try and alternate between NA, Europe, and Asia.
> I think we should do something similar.
>
> Mat
>
>
>
> Future IETF Meeting Sites
>
> Fall 2007 - 70th IETF
> December 2-7, 2007
> Host: TBD
> Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
>
> The following meeting dates were adopted to avoid conflicts with other
> organizations when known and possible. Unfortunately with more than
30
> organizations and only 52 weeks in a year, it was not always possible.
> The IETF's policy with regard to clashes can be found at:
> http://www.ietf.org/meetings/clash_list.html
>
> The meetings also identify locations. These locations are target
> locations, but they are provisional and dependent upon many variables
> including qualified venue availability, financial risk and identifying
> an appropriate Host.
>
> Clash List
> http://www.ietf.org/meetings/clash_list.html
>
> Spring 2008 - 71st IETF
> March 9-14, 2008
> Host: Comcast
> Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
>
> Summer 2008 - 72nd IETF
> July 27 - August 1, 2008
> Host: TBD
> Location: Europe (Provisional)
>
> Fall 2008 - 73rd IETF
> November 16-21, 2008
> Host: TBD
> Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
>
> Spring 2009 - 74th IETF
> March 22-27, 2009
> Host: TBD
> Location: Europe (Provisional)
>
> Summer 2009 - 75th IETF
> July 26-31, 2009
> Host: TBD
> Location: Asia (Provisional)
>
> Fall 2009 - 76th IETF
> November 8-13, 2009
> Host: TBD
> Location: North America (Provisional)
>
> Spring 2010 - 77th IETF
> March 21-26, 2010
> Host: TBD
> Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
>
> Summer 2010 - 78th IETF
> July 25-30, 2010
> Host: TBD
> Location: Europe (Provisional)
>
> Fall 2010 - 79th IETF
> November 7-12, 2010
> Host: TBD
> Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
>
> Spring 2011 - 80th IETF
> March 27-April 1, 2011
> Host: TBD
> Location: Europe (Provisional)
>
> Summer 2011 - 81st IETF
> July 24-29, 2011
> Host: TBD
> Location: Asia (Provisional)
>
> Fall 2011 - 82nd IETF
> November 13-18, 2011
> Host: TBD
> Location: North America - Canada (Provisional)
>
> Spring 2012 - 83rd IETF
> March 25-30, 2012
> Host: TBD
> Location: Asia (Provisional)
>
> Summer 2012 - 84th IETF
> July 29-August 3, 2012
> Host: TBD
> Location: North America - Canada (Provisional)
>
> Fall 2012 - 85th IETF
> November 4-9, 2012
> Host: TBD
> Location: Europe (Provisional)
>
> Spring 2013 - 86th IETF
> March 17-22, 2013
> Host: TBD
> Location: North America (Provisional)
>
> Summer 2013 - 87th IETF
> July 28-August 2, 2013
> Host: TBD
> Location: Europe (Provisional)
>
> Fall 2013 - 88th IETF
> November 3-8, 2013
> Host: TBD
> Location: North America (Provisional)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Engineering Fellow
> BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of David Bagby
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:14 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
> 2009Plenary Session for your review
>
> Hi Andrew -
> Yep, facts can be interpreted - and one typically needs to first have
> the
> data to make an interpretation (well, at least "typically" in the
> engineering world <grin>).
>
> So, I'm looking to see what insights are to be had from data the
> organization has.
> The data may or may not be consistent with or lead to the possible
> interpretations you listed.
> I have no way to know since I don't have the information. w/o the
> information, I prefer to refrain from speculation.
>
> The first step seems to me to be to find out
> 1) what data do we have?
> Then to think about
> 2) what does it say to us?
>
> While I have some "gut feelings" (as I said in the email), I'm trying
to
> ignore those and look to see what can be learned from available data.
>
> (I'm not in the mood to be "a north going zak". BTW - I'm not sure
that
> reference will xlate to Australia - were Dr. Suess books popular
there?
> The
> response to that side bar ? Should probably not be via the SEC
> reflector).
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Myles [mailto:andrew.myles@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:28 PM
> To: david.bagby@ieee.org
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
> 2009Plenary
> Session for your review
>
>
> G'day Dave
>
> Ah, "the facts". Facts may be interpreted in many ways.
>
> One interpretation of "the facts" is that if you mainly hold IEEE 802
> meetings in NA then:
> * Most participants will come from NA
> * Many potential and desirable participants from outside NA will not
> start
> attending, even if held elsewhere occasionally
> * Many participants will complain about it being held elsewhere, and
> will
> not attend elsewhere
>
> The IEEE SA for various good reasons has a policy that IEEE standards
> work
> should be international. We should do everything possible to support
> this
> policy.
>
> Andrew
>
> BTW I apologise if it is not appropriate to send this e-mail to the EC
> reflector, not being an EC member.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of David Bagby
> Sent: Friday, 14 September 2007 10:01 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
> 2009Plenary
> Session for your review
>
> Hi -
>
> I've been reading a fair amount about how SEC members wish the world
> were,
> but not much discussion about how it is. For me, the recent venue
> discussion
> thread is missing significant points -
>
> Heinlein may have said it best:
> "What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts?
> Shun
> wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars
> foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never
mind
> the
> unguessable "verdict of history" - what are the facts, and to how many
> decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are
your
> single clue. Get the facts!"
>
> I'd like to form my opinion re non-NA venues from some facts. I think
> 802
> has the desired data, let's see what it tells us.
>
> 1) attendance vs. locations - what is the data?
> 802 is an organization that depends on volunteer labor. What are the
> facts
> wrt to attendance at various categories of locations? I don't have the
> 802
> attendance data or I'd have done the exercise myself. I'd like to see
> some
> simple analysis of 802 attendance data. A starting idea: a simple 2
bar
> graph - one bar is average attendance at NA location for some period
> (say
> the most recent 5 years) and the other bar is the average attendance
at
> non-NA locations for the same period.
>
> I suspect there is a significant difference between the two bars.
> Further I
> suspect that the NA bar will be the higher one (that's just what my
> experience over 17+ years of participation tells me I would expect -
but
> again, what are the facts?)
>
> 2) what does this data tell us?
> Set aside the discussion of how SEC members "want" 802 to be perceived
> in
> the world (and then asserting that this justifies non-NA venues), and
> let's
> spend a little bit of time considering what the membership is telling
us
> about what they want for locations.
>
> The requested data is likely to tell us something significant about
what
> the
> aggregate membership is (and has been) willing to support wrt to venue
> locations.
>
> For each session the members have voted with their time and dollars -
> and I
> suspect the reality is that there is a real, significant, manpower
cost
> to
> non-NA venues. Take the difference in the bars from the graph, and do
> the
> math - add up the delta man-hours and apply an average burdened
manpower
> rate (between $200 and 4250/hr the last time I looked) to convert to $
-
> this will be a first estimate of a real $ cost from venue dependant
> manpower
> deltas.
>
> If the membership has been willing to pay the direct costs of non-NA
> venues
> for the time period for which we have data, the bars will be very
close
> in
> magnitude. If the bars are not close, that also tells us something.
>
> 802 offers a product - standards. 802's primary customers for the
> product
> are it's members. The members use the product to create products for
> their
> customers. I suspect we have a case of a company's (802's) customers
> (802
> members) speaking pretty clearly.
>
> The venue/price issue has elasticity. I personally suspect that a
> significant number of members have been telling the organization that
> they
> are not willing to pay the costs of non-NA venues (the Rome situation
> would
> just another example that corresponds to the data we already have). As
> the
> 802 participation costs go up, attendance goes down. As attendance
goes
> down, organization productivity also goes down (the work doesn't get
> done by
> people that don't show up).
>
> Perhaps a bit of consideration is also in order as to why we hold
> sessions?
> When I read comments of the form "I've already been to location XYZ",
I
> have
> to wonder: Is the 802 business to produce standards products or to
> provide
> interesting travel locations?
>
> Now I finally come to the sub-topic in this thread which tipped me
into
> writing this email...
>
> When you see people staying elsewhere, they are voting with their
> wallets.
> Personally, I've stayed 99% of the time in the session hotel. That is
> not
> usually the lowest cost option. There are reasons this works for me -
> it's a
> matter of ROI - and the balance that works for me may not be the one
> that
> works for others.
>
> Attempting to "penalize" attendees by charging them what someone
thinks
> they
> "should have paid" had they stayed where "you wanted them to stay"
(not
> where they wanted to stay) is doomed to failure. You won't get the
> "extra"
> $, you'll just eliminate some more attendees - resulting in even lower
> income to 802 for that session. That's the nature of the concept of
> elasticity.
>
> Like it or not, the reality is that 802 simply does not have the
ability
> to
> reverse the economic forces in play. Increase the costs of attending
> (time,
> hassle and/or $) and less attend - doesn't matter how you allocate the
$
> between hotel, reg fess etc.
>
> 802 doesn't have to like the facts, The facts are simply what they are
-
> and
> the facts don't care if they are liked. But.... IMHO 802 management
> would
> be wise to pay attention to what the data says.
>
> Personally, I think the best business decision is to do what maximizes
> the
> productivity of the volunteer labor pool that creates the 802 product.
>
> If the DATA supports more non-na venues, so be it; if the data says
zero
> non-NA venues so be it. If the data says all meeting should be in
> Timbuktu,
> so be it.
>
> So what does the data say?
>
> David Bagby
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Carl R.
> Stevenson
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:22 PM
> To: 'John Hawkins'; 'Bob O'Hara (boohara)';
> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
> 2009Plenary
> Session for your review
>
>
> Better judgments/earlier adjustments for attendance can likely be
> obtained
> by making the early registration period open sooner and the "ratchet
up
> point" occur earlier (with significant steps up for later
registration).
>
> I also liked the suggestion (I think it may have been Buzz's, but
don't
> recall for sure) to have a 2 tier registration ... With a "surcharge"
if
> you
> will that would cover the "fair share" cost of meeting space and other
> things for folks who choose not to book hotel rooms in our
hotel/block.
> To
> me, that is fair, because those who stay in other hotels are impacting
> our
> costs for other things that are provided (and in EU charged for) by
our
> meeting hotel.
>
> Regards,
> Carl
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of John
>> Hawkins
>> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:43 PM
>> To: Bob O'Hara (boohara); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
>> 2009Plenary Session for your review
>>
>> That ability certainly exists. We have a healthy reserve at the
>> moment, and we have time to add to it if deemed necessary for the
Rome
>
>> session (or any other one for that matter). Note that any session
>> defict by definition comes out of that reserve. Where else would it
>> come from? So the trick is being able to predict attendance. This was
>> the case w/ London, and will be the case going forward. It's hard to
>> predict how many folks will show up, and how many rooms they will
>> book.
>>
>> john
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
>> (boohara)
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:14 PM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
>> 2009Plenary Session for your review
>>
>> Even with all the uncertainty about attendance and cost, I support
>> going to the Rome venue.
>>
>> I would like to hear John Hawkins' thoughts on the ability to use a
>> growing reserve to partially offset the large meeting registration
>> fee.
>>
>> -Bob
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This
> list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This
> list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This
> list is maintained by Listserv.
--
John R. Barr (John.Barr@Motorola.com)
Director, Standards Realization - <http://www.motorola.com>
Chairman of the Board, Bluetooth SIG - <http://www.bluetooth.org>
(847) 576-8706 (office) +1-847-962-5407 (mobile) (847) 576-6758 (FAX)
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.