Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
Mike / All,
I'm still withholding my vote.
I voted abstain last time because I didn't feel we were given enough
time to consider the matter. I will come off the fence this time, but
I'm not sure which side yet.
I currently favor voting against this motion. Rome would be a hardship
(for me as well as the group). Yes, there is financial risk, but we
have dealt with financial insecurity before, and will face it again.
This is a new experience, and by definition we have a lot to learn. But
whatever happens we will benefit from the experience and it will help us
refine our techniques for selecting future Non-NA meeting sites.
As for the poll, I can't help but feel that IEEE802 was presented with
only half the story. Unfortunately, I could not attend the activities
that developed the poll, but it seemed more focused on the raw cost, and
presented little rationale as to why the extra financial costs and risks
may be warranted. Here are some rationales in favor of staying the
course with Rome:
1) We seem to have forgotten the original rationale for doing non-NA
plenarys to begin with. While we can poll the people who attended the
last 802 in Atlanta, we can't poll any of the people who didn't because
Atlanta was not a convenient location for them to attend. By definition
the poll is biased because it did not include the many people who might
have attended IEEE802 if it were in Europe or Asia, but couldn't because
it was in Atlanta. In short, we don't know who we are disenfranchising
from the IEEE802 process, and can't unless we take IEEE802 to other
locations and see what happens.
2) In my opinion Vancouver should never have been considered. The
requirements for this meeting (as I recall) were that it should be
non-NA. It's not even clear to me why Vancouver was on the list to
begin with as it did not meet the stated requirements.
3) In my mind Vancouver is the 'easy way out'. Yes we would have a
successful session in Vancouver (we've had many before). But I'm really
worried if we bail now, it will just bail again and again in the future.
If I understand correctly, we spent 3 years trying to set up the non-NA
session for 2009, and Rome was the best we can do? The next opportunity
for a non-NA meeting is 2011, and I see no evidence that we will do any
better then. I am worried about establishing a pattern of taking the
easy way out an never going non-NA because it is just too hard. I
really feel if we don't try, we won't learn from our mistakes.
4) Other organizations seem to make this work. IETF is the closest
example I can think of. Why is it they can do it, and we can't?
5) Other IEEE meetings (MILCOM is the most recent one I have attended)
regularly have registration fees over $1000, and yet have 4000
attendees, and charge >$250 per night for rooms in Orlando. Some have
argued that IEEE802 has plenarys 3 times a year, so it's not a fair
comparison. But we are only going non-NA once every two years at the
moment. If once every two years we have a meeting that costs about the
same as what other IEEE meetings normally cost, (I'm assuming many of
our attendee will find cheaper hotels for $250/night) then I don't see
this as an issue.
6) A prior poll of IEEE802 seemed to favor Rome. So we sort of have
conflicting info in front of us. Assumedly price is what turned the
community against Rome, but it's not clear to me the issues were
properly presented. Hotel costs should have been decoupled from
registration fees in the question.
7) While I don't like the venue in Rome, we have been left with no other
Non-NA choices. I still think there are things that can be done to
improve the situation. For instance, we could run a bus service (even
if only twice a day) to / from a central location in Rome. Many people
commute in their daily lives. People drive and take cabs. If the Cab
fare is $50 each way, but it saves you $200 on your room, perhaps that
is worth it.
8) Something I don't see being accounted is that not everyone is
spending dollars. If someone is paid in Euros or Yen, will they still
perceive these costs are as out of line as Americans might? If they
already travel regularly in Europe, they might view the costs
differently. Also the costs presented are speculative. It is still
possible that the dollar will be stronger by the time we go to Rome, and
the difference in cost might not be so dramatic.
Anyway, I encourage further debate and comment before we conclude this.
I will probably wait another day before casting my vote and see how
others respond to my comments above.
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: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Michael Takefman
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:08 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
All,
With all due respect to John and tongue somewhat held in cheek.
Canada's visa requirements are significantly different then those of the
12th through 62nd
southern provinces. Thus sessions held south of the border are
definitely
viewed as
non-Canadian although clearly North American to our visitors from
elsewhere
in the globe.
That being said, I agree that the Vancouver session does not meet the
"non-N/A"
goal, but from what I've read on the reflector, is more likely to be a
better session
then Rome.
cheers,
mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "J Lemon" <jlemon@IEEE.ORG>
To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:16 PM
Subject: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
> If you are inclined to vote against Rome, think before you vote for
> Vancouver. Vancouver is not the logical alternative to Rome. If we
can't
> get a European or Asian venue this time, then the next best venue
would
> at least be non-NA. I know that people are afraid of Hawaii being seen
> as a vacation trip. But I also know that it is very popular among our
> participants coming from Asia, and it is definitely non-NA. Sure, it
is
> still the US, but does anyone other than Canadians (hi Mike) really
view
> Canada as being a non-American venue? Vancouver does little if
anything
> to ease the Americancentric appearance, and does nothing to alleviate
> the travel burden of those from other continents. Rome may not be the
> best choice, but neither is Vancouver. Until a venue is proposed that
> addresses at least some of the problems we were trying to solve, I ask
> you to reject switching to a random venue of convenience.
>
> John Lemon
>
> ----------
> 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.