Andrew,
Didn’t get a chance to respond earlier.
While I understand and support the meetings
around the world – remote meetings around the world are
different. I would support times that minimize the
requirement of anyone globally to have to be in a meeting in
the midnight to 6am time zone of their respective time zone.
As Glenn noted – the 9am to noon ET is that sweet spot.
John
Andrew,
I suggested this before in 802.1. The
meeting time should be the same time of where the in-person
session was supposed to be. This was for the May interim
which would have been PT.
However, in the 802.1 WG everyone who
voiced an opinion spoke against my proposal. The counter was
that the sweet spot (9am – noon ET) was the best time slot for
all material time zones (which in 802.1 is: Europe, North
America and Japan/China). So I dropped it.
Cheers,
Glenn.
PS. A full view on the time zones is:
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?month=11&day=9&year=2020&p1=224&p2=220&p3=70&p4=188&p5=136&p6=87&p7=33&p8=248&iv=0
G’day all
Another interesting
question is timing.
The IEEE 802 EC decided
to hold IEEE 802 in a different locations around the world
in recognition that IEEE 802 is international. The next
plenary in Nov 2020 was scheduled for Bangkok.
There is a good case
that EC and WG sessions in Nov 2020 should be scheduled for
Bangkok time, which will be very painful for US participants
but very convenient for Asian & European based
participants. What is the counter case?
Andrew
FYI
The EC meeting this week
is
- 1pm ET
- 3am where I live
- 12am in Bangkok
- 6pm in UK
In November it would be
- 1pm in Bangkok
- 5pm where I live
- 1am ET
- 6am in UK
One question I have is if we hold an
Electronic Plenary in November, would we make it one week or
two weeks. A number of WGs fit their meetings within one
week. Do we want to do that for everyone?
I do like having the WG opening on Friday
before the week begins. That enables the WGs to start on
Monday AM, which some chose to do for timing reasons. So
Friday EC opening with a closing on Friday the following week
seems okay to me.
I do like having the EC meetings like we
did this time, when it is not 5 AM PDT.
I agree, no need to decide before Aug 4.
Regards,
Steve
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of the organization.
I
concur with James' suggestion that July 23rd is too soon to
decide on the schedule for November. While we have learned a
great deal, to analyze the data before the experiment is
completed compromises the results. 802.3, 802.18 and 802.19
have yet to complete the scheduled meetings. The plenary
will not be completed until Friday when the EC meeting ends.
Putting the conclusion before the data analysis is not sound
engineering.
For
those who may want to evaluate the July experiment based on
the actual experience, the extra 11 days time is valuable.
FWIW
Benjamin Rolfe (BCA)
On 7/19/2020 5:31 PM, James P. K. Gilb
wrote:
George
My view, which has been consistent, is that we should wait
for feedback from the WGs as our purpose is to enable them
to operate as efficiently as possible.
I have not heard anyone state that we should wait until a
certain time. I don't know anyone who has stated that we
need to wait until August or later.
We should have the feedback by the August 4th meeting,
perhaps sooner. That will enable us to make a decision in
plenty of time for future planning.
The difference between a decision at the July 23rd meeting
and the August 4th meeting is only 11 days.
If there is a _specific_ item that needs to be scheduled
right now, I would be interested to hear what it is.
If attempt to decide without the necessary information, then
it is more likey that we would need to change the schedule,
which works counter to the argument that we need, right now,
to nail down the times for the plenary.
James Gilb
On 7/17/20 3:31 PM, George Zimmerman wrote:
All -
I meant to get this out earlier, but the week has gotten
away from me.
I would like to speak in support of providing clarity on
the schedule and nature of the November IEEE 802 meeting.
I have heard discussion of waiting until August, or even
perhaps later to do this, and would advise against it.
This is for several reasons:
First, our participants are asking. It is not just idle
curiousity. They are trying to make plans for their own
schedules and their own participation. I can personally
tell you that what are minor changes in the schedule for
802 meetings in July has made a mess of plans I made back
in May. I have adjusted, but knowing about the schedule
earlier would have avoided a bunch of work and juggling
activities. Others plan meetings and reviews well in
advance, and need the benefit of clarity in the 802
schedule in order to maximize their participation.
Second, the leaders of our more active groups need to
advance plan and synchronize multiple levels of effort.
New activity (study group) initiation, PAR review, Task
Force reviews, and Working group meetings all interlock
with the plenary schedule. Things work better when
planned. We all appreciate a well-run meeting, and, if
you're seeing what I'm seeing, these virtual meetings
require more, not less work. We are generally quite good
at making these things work seamlessly, but it is because
a number of activities are aligned well in advance -
usually around the exit of the previous plenary cycle -
which is now.
Finally, most of the input will be in by Friday. All of
our working groups will have finished meeting. If there
is critical input or data needed, let us identify it.
Otherwise, we are just delaying a decision for a 'what if'
case and incurring the penalty of continued uncertainty
which doesn't serve our participants well and makes our
leaders' jobs harder.
Thanks for listening - it has been a long week.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
george@cmephyconsulting.com<mailto:george@cmephyconsulting.com>
310-920-3860
----------
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.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the
following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list,
click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the
following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the
following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1