Re: [802SEC] Proposed process to choose March 2011 802 Plenary
Steve,
Thanks for keeping the ball rolling here. All--let's re-engage in the nonNA
discussions. Buzz--please work on step 1 as suggested.
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shellhammer, Steve" <sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM>
To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed process to choose March 2011 802 Plenary
> Paul and Buzz,
>
> Now that we are in the New Year and we have completed the
> critical vote that Paul wanted to finish first I just wanted to check if
> we are going to implement Roger's plan for choosing a non-NA venue.
>
> There seemed to be strong support for the plan so I think all we
> need to do now is execute the plan.
>
> Is someone planning to start step #1?
>
> "(1) by 31 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."
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:22 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802SEC] Proposed process to choose March 2011 802 Plenary
>
> Folks,
>
> I think it's time to plan the process for choosing the site of the
> March 2011 802 Plenary. I recommend we try a new approach.
>
> In my view, the best path to success is to work with a local host who
> wants our session and will be willing to put its name and credibility
> on the line to make sure it goes right. I have some experience in
> this area. I served as the Meetings and Symposia Chair of an IEEE
> Society that threw an annual Symposium for around 8,000 to 10,000
> people. The event is big enough that the site is chosen annually
> eight years in advance. Still, the competition to host is strong, and
> it is not unusual to have three proposals from which to choose. The
> process involves a request for proposals, a site visit committee, and
> a formal site selection process. Proposals are selected based on
> location, facilities, costs, the interest of the local community, and
> the commitment of the local organizing committee. The results are
> great. The locals want the Symposium, and they work hard to deliver
> one that people will remember. [Since I served as Vice Chair of one
> of those local committees, I know how hard people work to pull off a
> successful event to which their name is attached.]
>
> Long ago, I used to organize 802.16 interim sessions myself when I
> had no other option. I always chose a site near my home. Sometimes
> people would say something like, "Hey, let's meet in Rio; that would
> be a great spot." I would say, "Sorry; I know Denver; I don't know
> Rio." Eventually, I developed a simple site selection process based
> on host proposals. Now, when someone asks for Rio, I say "Great, why
> don't you make a proposal?" Every four months, when we choose a site,
> we have at least one proposal to consider, and we have had as many as
> four at once. We get, for the most part, committed local members who
> convince their company to join in and, in the best cases, bring along
> the local industry, academic, and government communities.
>
> I think that 802 is in a similar situation now. Buzz knows North
> America like I know Denver. We can tell Buzz to go make a meeting in
> Rio, but we may not be happy with the results, and we may not build
> any lasting relationships.
>
> I suggest that we seek proposals to host the March 2011 Plenary and
> make a choice at the July session. Here is a specific timeline to get
> there:
>
> (1) by 31 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 a proposal.
>
> Note that this would not require any EC action before the March 802
> Plenary. We just need Step (1) to kick it off.
>
> The RfP could specify that we are particularly seeking venues outside
> North America and would expect to give them preference. We could also
> be rigid about this, but my personal opinion is that we should be
> flexible, retaining the option to choose a North American site if
> that was the only reasonable option. Anyway, the RfP would be subject
> to EC discussion.
>
> If we take an approach like this, I have a lot of confidence that we
> will get a good response. I am committed to working with prospective
> hosts to get us at least one solid hosting offer outside North America.
>
> I welcome your thoughts on this proposal.
>
> Roger
>
>
> ----------
> 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.