Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009 - Please VOTE Now !!!
Hi Pat,
Well, in the interest of setting the record straight then let me correct
a couple of your points: :-)
1. I don't know who you think 802.1 and 802.3 made their indication of
non-participation to but it certainly wasn't to me. I took the
unanimous approval of the 802-hosted interim by the SEC as an indication
of their intention to participate. The first indication of any lack of
support for that session was communicated to me at the next subsequent
plenary session when the WG voted to go elsewhere, long after the
contract and commitments for a plenary style session had been signed and
delivered. Do you honestly think I would have committed to that many
rooms if I had any inkling that >25% of the Group would not be
participating in the session? I hope not because that would imply a
rather egregious error in judgment on my part.
2. Further, I should like to point out that for London we actually had
considerably better pick-up of our blocked rooms percentage-wise than we
do at most plenaries: with the 740 attendees we booked 553 rooms which
is 75% of attendance where we normally do right around 65%. I suspect
that may well be due to the fact that many of our most budget-minded
folks (from 802.3 & 802.1), who would be more likely to book outside our
block, chose to go somewhere else instead.
3. And Pat, I have never ever disputed the fact that it is possible for
a group of 50-250 to hold meetings in nNA venues for fairly reasonable
prices especially if there is a local hosting organization. But you
absolutely cannot extrapolate that the same is true for a group of 1500.
Bob Heile can chronicle the difficulties for even a group of 500-700
with his Wireless Interims. It's a whole different ballgame and all the
rules change to work against you. That's why smaller WG interims can go
to many nNA venues with great success, and nNA plenaries are a major
struggle.
What I don't understand is, if our nNA attendees are truly distressed by
too many NA venues as some EC members want to assume, why are there NO
volunteers from their companies or organizations to host meetings in
their regions as Roger Marks has suggested ??? Perhaps Roger is correct
that we need to draft a detailed invitation for nNA hosts that spells
out all of the requirements for being a suitable IEEE-802 host, post
them on our website, and circulate them at every session. That's what
the IETF has done and until recently it has worked fairly well for them.
The future is not so clear but we might at least catch some takers
before the trend runs out completely. It seems like it is worth a try
anyway.
But nevertheless we still need to hear from 802.1, 802.3, and 802.11
plus the rest of the officers of the SEC that have not cast an official
vote yet (Nikolich, Sherman, Thaler, O'Hara, Hawkins, and Thompson).
Since this is a straw poll everyone gets to vote. When we get the full
response I will report the findings for all to review. Let us hear your
thoughts !!! :-)
Thanx, Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing IT
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
Ph: (425) 373-8960 Fx: (425) 865-7960
Cell: (425) 417-1022
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@BROADCOM.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 5:59 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009
Buzz and Carl,
I want to set the record straight. Time after time past history about
the London meeting gets misrepresented and I'm getting pretty tired of
it.
Both 802.1 and 802.3 indicated from the beginning of the London plans
that they didn't want to go to that interim. There was never an
"overwhelming" desire of all groups to go there. There was a unanimous
vote of the EC to approve the London interim after contract negotiation
issues had gotten hairy and then were ironed out, but my intent in
voting for that motion was to allow the London meeting for the groups
that said they wanted to go there - I believe that was true of some
other voters. Before, during and after that vote, it was clear that not
all working groups were going to meet there - there wasn't any sudden
change or "boycott." Given that both groups had been clear from the
beginning that the London interim was only acceptable if they were
allowed to opt out, the last minute attempt to force them there was
unjustified and did not create good will. If that had been a requirement
of London, I would never have voted to approve the meeting.
London had the problem of a very expensive hotel in an area where there
are plenty of more reasonably priced rooms so even for groups that met
there there was not as good a room night tally as would usually occur.
Rome has a similar potential - if I recall correctly, these rates aren't
as high as London but there are certainly other places to stay in Rome
that are more budget priced. 802.1 just met in Stockholm with similar
room rates and that seems to have gone okay though there wasn't much in
the way of cheaper rooms available.
In any case, I asked a question about room night pick-up earlier. My
understanding from what Buzz said is that Rome could be set up so that
we aren't as dependent on room nights as London was.
To correct another error below: Steve isn't responsible for finding
802.1 venues, he is an 802.3 officer though of course he has worked with
802.1 on the occasions where we had a joint interim location. 802.1 has
had many recent non-NA interims. Bejing in addtion to York, Geneva and
Stockholm.
I don't expect any Working Groups to opt out of a plenary. I also don't
expect to ever again vote for an 802 hosted interim except in a case
like the Vancouver interim some years ago where it was set up to avoid a
penalty because a plenary had insufficient room night pick-up (proof
that even an NA meeting in one of our tried-and-true favorite venues can
have that problem).
Carl, I also felt your earlier comment about the rest of the 2009 and
2010 meetings being booked non-NA was uncalled for. All the venue
decisions for those dates were discussed at EC meetings.
Sincerely,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:14 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009
Buzz,
Comments in response "in-line" below for context.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Rigsbee, Everett O
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:40 PM
> To: wk3c@WK3C.COM; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009
>
> Carl,
>
> I have just completed a very lengthy and intensive negotiation process
> with the London hotels that were looking to assess a very
> large penalty
> on us for failing to meet required pick-up for our January Session
> because after "Overwhelming Support" for the London meeting at the SEC
> and our signing contracts for a full plenary type session, two of our
> larger WGs decided to boycott that meeting and we were left
> holding the
> bag. We were very lucky that time that I was able to
> extricate us from
> that mess with a substantially reduced penalty payment ($25K). We may
> not be nearly as lucky next time. With the possibility of penalties
> that could literally bankrupt our treasury looming on the horizon I do
> not wish to rush into some nNA deal unless I have some assurance from
> each of the WGs that we will not have a repeat of what happened in
> London. That is my job; it is what I am not getting paid to do, and I
> will do it as I see fit. We DO need to be careful here to not put
> ourselves in jeopardy and I am trying my best to do that. It does not
> help to have you accusing me of trying to sabotage the nNA venue. I
> just want to be really sure that we do have solid support for
> paying the
> 2x costs that are required and that all our WGs will participate this
> time. If I were to do anything less, I would expect a vote
> from the SEC to remove me from my job for dereliction of duty.
While I didn't have to clean up the mess from London as you did, I
sympathize and appreciate your efforts in that regard.
That was, however, an interim, and while I tried to float a motion that
would have forced the "boycotting" groups to either meet in London as
the EC
had specified or forego an interim at an alternate location, as you're
aware
that didn't fly (due to a ruling from Paul if I recall correctly ...)
Rome will be a plenary and I don't see how any WG/TAG could "boycott"
(as
you put it) an 802 plenary ...
I believe that we need to find a way to do this - and enforce it - so
that
accurate projections/budgeting can be done and we don't end up "in a
pickle."
This will require the will of a majority of the EC ... And I believe
that
that will exists.
> While you may think there is overwhelming support from IEEE-SA for nNA
> venues, I have been receiving strong cautionary messages from IEEE
> Contract Procurement that it is a minefield out there and very easy to
> get your organization into a serious bind with nNA venues. So I have
> some extra incentive to be especially prudent in pursuing these deals.
> I would hope that you would appreciate that.
I appreciate prudence and was not aware of "strong cautionary messages
from
IEEE Contract Procurement" ... Can you share with me (privately is fine,
if
you prefer, in my role as a member of the BoG) who is giving you such
cautionary messages?
Again, I observe that *many* other organizations routinely meet in
non-NA
venues as a matter of policy and their normal way of doing business -
apparently without any disastrous consequences.
> So can we please cooperate in trying to be reasonably responsible in
> making this decision and refrain from making inflammatory accusations
> ??? I believe we are all trying to do what is right for the good of
> IEEE-802. Let's try to work together with that goal in mind, please.
By all means we need to cooperate and make responsible decisions. And,
if
my comments were taken in an offensive way by you, that was not my
intention
so please accept my sincere apology for any offense it caused you.
It's just that it seems to me that you've already gotten a solid
pro-Rome
reaction from .11, .15., .18, .19, .20, .21, and .22, along with Tony
for .1
(.16 was somewhat pro-Rome, but given the "vote as many times as you
wish"
approach, it seems that the .16 position is based on a different
question
than "Rome or Vancouver?" I don't recall if Bob Grow has responded for
.3
or not. And John responded that he preferred Rome, but had no interim at
which to poll his members.
To me, that, combined with our policy goal indicates that we should do
what
is required to get the best deal possible in Rome and move forward
(perhaps
based on earlier pre-registration, earlier steps up in meeting fees, and
a
starting point attendance-wise that's conservative with some incentives
negotiated into the contract if we exceed commitments, rather than
penalties
if we set the bar too high and fall way short). There's also the
concept
that someone floated about a 2 tier registration fee ... With a "meeting
space and F&B surcharge" for anyone who doesn't book in our room block
at
the meeting hotel (as long as space is available, at least).
It seems to me that we need to look at creative ways to make it happen
(recognizing that it's inherently going to cost more), while minimizing
the
risks of outrageous penalties.
Regards,
Carl
----------
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.