Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
Pat,
I'm not planning on addressing the proposed nNA motion(s) until I get the
802.20 sponsor ballot group items off to-do list. I'll try to get to the
nNA decisions this weekend--so look for something on Monday. Sorry to be
delaying the nNA progress--we'll get it moving again.
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Thaler" <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>
To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> Paul,
>
> Can we run this motion? I am concerned that if we don't start it soon we
> will lose the ability to start the non-NA proposal process with
> tentative proposals due for our March meeting and firm proposals in
> July. If it pushes out further, it may make March 2011 very difficult.
>
> In my last email I pointed out that it is more efficient for us to work
> on planning for these three meetings in the same proposal cycle. Running
> a concurrent process for the three plenaries may also make it easier for
> potential hosts. When they contact possible venues, they can ask about
> availabilty for any of the three dates.
>
> On Dec 3, 2007, at 07:37 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
>
>> Based on Buzz's input regarding university venues, I am removing July
>> 2012 and adding in July 2013.
>>
>> I suggest a motion as follows:
>>
>> To adopt the following process for finding and choosing non-North
>> American plenary venues for March 2011 and March 2012, July 2013
>>
>> (1) by 15 January: IEEE 802 Executive Secretary issues a draft set of
>> facility requirements and issues a Request for Interest (RfI) seeking
>> a letter of intent from any prospective hosts.
>> (2) 7 March: Deadline for letter of intent that would name
>> prospective host and venue but without a firm commitment to host.
>> (3) 21 March: 802 EC approves a request for proposals (RfP),
>> including facility requirements and hosting specifications, with a
>> specific submittal template to allow ready intercomparison. 802 EC
>> also authorizes travel expenses for site visits to prospective hosts
>> identified by letter of intent.
>> (4) 20 June: Deadline for host proposals issued in response to the
>> RfP.
>> (5) 1 July: Executive Secretary submits report summarizing proposals
>> and results of site visits.
>> (6) 14 July: During a tutorial slot, host candidates overview their
>> proposals.
>> (7) 18 July: 802 EC votes to accept proposals.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pat
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
>> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:42 AM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Tony's suggestion: "... I would prefer to see us pass a motion
>> accepting
>>
>> Roger's proposed process (or some near variant thereof) for choosing
>> potential nNA venues in the future, and that we follow up by actually
>> getting our hands dirty with finding some candidates to choose
>> between."
>>
>> makes sense to me.
>>
>> FYI the SASB meetings are being held this week and I need to pay close
>> attention to what is happening down there in FL, so I'd like to put
>> taking
>> any action on the nNA issue on hold for a week--but let the debate
>> continue,
>> perhaps by next Monday we'll have a sensible motion crafted that
>> will be
>>
>> ready for email ballot to close before the end of the year holidays?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK>
>> To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:04 AM
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
>>
>>
>>> At 01:26 03/12/2007, Sherman, Matthew J. \(US SSA\) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tony,
>>>>
>>>> First I am fully supportive of Roger's plan and think we should go
>>>> forward.
>>>
>>> In which case I am sure you would have no problem supporting a motion
>> that
>>> approves that as a plan going forward.
>>>
>>>> I recognize that many of us are now getting involved and
>>>> trying to assist Buzz.
>>>
>>> The point I was trying to make is that until we are *all* (and I mean
>> all,
>>> not just a few or even the majority) actively involved in fixing this
>>> problem, then
>>>
>>> (a) the likelihood of it getting fixed is small,
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> (b) we have no business passing motions of the form "Until they fix
>> the
>>> problem then they can't do X".
>>>
>>>> But it bothers me that we have worked on this
>>>> for 3 years (if I've understood correctly) without finding a
>>>> solution,
>>>> and that we now have at least 4 more years (5 since we just gave
>>>> away
>>>> 2011 as well as 2009 as being potentially to 'too hard' to take
>> non-NA).
>>>> Where does it end?
>>>
>>> ...but that is precisely my point. "We", for the most part, haven't
>> been
>>> working on it *at all* other than offering occasional
>>> encouragement to
>>
>>> others and passing the odd motion. Big deal. Its time we stopped
>> passing
>>> vacuous motions and got with the program.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think we need to place a strong focus on solving the problem. The
>>>> fact that there is a 'safe solution' I believe is preventing us from
>>>> focusing on solving the problem. It's time to fly without a net.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry...that doesn't make much more sense to me than your
>> "learning
>>> from experience" comment earlier in the discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>> By the way, we already ripped up one decision we made that would
>>>> have
>>>> forced us to go to Rome (non-NA). We can always rip up this motion
>> too
>>>> if it becomes apparent we can't find a venue.
>>>
>>> In which case, why bother to make the motion in the first place?
>>>
>>>> But I would like that for
>>>> at least one year Buzz truly focuses on finding a non-NA venue with
>> out
>>>> the distraction of NA venues to consider.
>>>
>>> I repeat, I would like for *us all* to truly focus on the problem.
>> Buzz is
>>> a volunteer, just like the rest of us; this isn't his only job. And
>> there
>>> is a limit to what one person can do in a situation where we are
>>> attempting to do something that is new for the organisation and may
>> not
>>> necessarily conform to the way business is routinely done in NA. He
>>> doesn't need us making more rods for his back; what he needs is
>> practical
>>> help and support. Lets start doing that.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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 Tony Jeffree
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 2:05 PM
>>>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
>>>>
>>>> Carl -
>>>>
>>>> While I support the desired end result of this motion (that we get
>>>> nNA meetings ASAP), I feel that it is ill-advised.
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, making motions isn't going to make nNA meetings happen. The
>>>> only thing that will ensure that it will happen is all of us (not
>>>> just Buzz, Bob H or Face-To-Face) doing what is in our power to
>>>> actively pursue possible venues. Right now, I am already doing just
>>>> that with my old University (which will of course only be a viable
>>>> choice as a July meeting, so preesumably wouldn't meet the
>>>> requirements of your motion anyway); I don't know yet whether it
>>>> is a
>>>> viable venue, but there's only one way to find out. If that one
>>>> fails, then I will look elsewhere for a campus venue in the UK. We
>>>> all have contacts of one form or another (via clients, employers, WG
>>>> members... whatever) that we could potentially tap into. For my
>>>> money, that is a more fruitful approach.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, Putting this kind of straight-jacket on what we can and
>>>> cannot book has the potential fallout (as Buzz has already pointed
>>>> out) that we end up with no palatable venues at all for the empty
>>>> slots 2011 on. I don't think that is what we want to happen.
>>>>
>>>> So rather than making what seems to me to be a rather empty gesture
>>>> by passing a "Make it so" motion, I would prefer to see us pass a
>>>> motion accepting Roger's proposed process (or some near variant
>>>> thereof) for choosing potential nNA venues in the future, and
>>>> that we
>>>> follow up by actually getting our hands dirty with finding some
>>>> candidates to choose between.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>> At 13:30 02/12/2007, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>>>>> I would accept the following change to my original motion:
>>>>>
>>>>> Moved: That 802 sign no contracts for NA plenary venues beyond 2011
>>>> until we
>>>>> have viable, affordable nNA venues in place for March 2011 and
>>>>> 2012.
>>>>>
>>>>> That will give Buzz the flexibility to book July and Nov 2011 (for
>>>> which he
>>>>> apparently has deals in the works, if I understand Mat's comment
>>>> correctly),
>>>>> but require us to focus remaining energy in the near term to
>>>>> finding
>>>> nNA
>>>>> venues for March 2011 and a 2012 plenary, which could be any of the
>>>> three.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mat, do I have it right and do you second the ammended motion
>>>>> above?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Carl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>>>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:07 AM
>>>>>> To: Rigsbee, Everett O; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am willing to second Carl's motion (but with a friendly
>>>> amendment).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can accept booking 2011 as a North American venue. There
>>>>>> is only the March meeting left and I think Buzz has already
>>>>>> worked the deals.
>>>>>> However I believe we should be focusing all our energy on
>>>>>> Non-NA venues after that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So my recommended motion if Carl will accept it is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moved: That 802 sign no further contracts for NA plenary
>>>>>> venues beyond
>>>>>> 2011 until we have *viable, affordable* nNA venues in place for
>>>> 2012.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until we start getting working non-NA venues, I think we all
>>>>>> need to chip in and assist Buzz. But we need to light a fire
>>>>>> underneath ourselves. 6 years to figure out how to do this
>>>>>> is simply too long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 Rigsbee,
>>>>>> Everett O
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 1:27 PM
>>>>>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Colleagues, This motion is a really "BAD" idea for several
>>>> reasons
>>>>>> but I will explain a couple of them in some detail:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. We have NO definitions for what is "viable" and what is
>>>>>> "affordable"
>>>>>> beyond what we got in our last survey, which several people
>>>>>> seem to think was flawed in one or more ways. So I would
>>>>>> suggest that if we want to put any qualifiers on nNA venue
>>>>>> selections we need to do some homework to decide what are the
>>>>>> appropriate qualifiers to ensure that they produce the best
>>>>>> Good for all of IEEE-802. I tend to agree with Roger Marks
>>>>>> that the best nNA venues will be those that have good support
>>>>>> from local hosts but finding appropriate hosts for nNA venues
>>>>>> will take some time as we have seen from Roger's schedule.
>>>>>> And when have we reached our goal ??? When we have selected
>>>>>> a site for 2011, or when we actually have all contracts in
>>>>>> place, which might take up to a year after selection? Do we
>>>>>> also have to have a completed deal for March 2012 as well ???
>>>>>> That might take another year to complete. How do we know,
>>>>>> "Are we done yet ???"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Meanwhile we have open slots in our schedule that we need
>>>>>> to book 3 to 4 years out to get access to any of the venues
>>>>>> we actually like, such as San Francisco, Maui, New Orleans,
>>>>>> and San Antonio. If we are not actively booking those slots
>>>>>> while we have good choices available, I can absolutely
>>>>>> guarantee that you will NOT like the choices we have at only
>>>>>> 2 years out (are we ready for HR-DFW or Hilton WDW again
>>>>>> ???). Right now we do have some good choices that we have
>>>>>> spent many hours working to bring you, but if we pass on
>>>>>> those for an indefinite period, you will not get another shot
>>>>>> at them. If we want to consider some constraints on future
>>>>>> venues let's focus on those that are in 2013 and beyond but I
>>>>>> would suggest that we do that by just not supporting venues
>>>>>> further out until we have some nNA venues on the schedule.
>>>>>> But I sincerely believe each venue needs to be judged on its
>>>>>> own merits and that we need to continuously seek guidance
>>>>>> from our membership as to what is really most important to
>>>>>> the success of the organization as a whole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@wk3c.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 8:17 AM
>>>>>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>>>> Subject: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
>>>>>> Importance: High
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having been asked to wait until the previous ballot closed,
>>>>>> the following would now appear to be timely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moved: That 802 sign no further contracts for NA plenary
>>>>>> venues until we have *viable, affordable* nNA venues in place
>>>>>> for 2011 and 2012.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Background: It appears that we require some "feet to the fire"
>>>>>> motivation to
>>>>>> find, select, and contract for nNA plenary venues. This
>>>>>> motion, if approved, would require that we meet our 3 year
>>>>>> old policy objective to hold at least one nNA plenary
>>>>>> annually, starting at the earliest possible time and assure
>>>>>> that ALL possible plenary session dates that are not already
>>>>>> contracted for be considered for nNA until we have contracted
>>>>>> viable, affordable nNA venues for 2011 and 2012.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards from the BoG meeting in Florida,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> ----------
>> 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.