| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Jon/John – you’re both right, the EC should discuss the organization of our meeting within a plenary. The ad hoc, as I understand it, was formed to look at the number of meetings and plan going forward, because we have long-term commitments to venues. As far as planning within a meeting, I believe we need to do some re-imagining of the schedule.
If we were to have a separate ad hoc, I’d consider inviting some outside of the EC to consider when to best spend the overall in-person time. I don’t think there is much question that we are going to have to be as efficient as possible with our in-person meeting time, because our room-density will almost surely be lower. That suggests some adjustments From what I’ve observed, small meetings and procedural items work well in virtual meetings. Big meetings and items which require consensus building are harder. Either in-person OR virtual.
For example, we use a bunch of time for EC meetings on procedural matters which might well be made virtual and outside of the time block. Working groups may have other optimizations as well. Our rules should allow the flexibility to choose. That said, Jon can’t plan a meeting without some bounds, so we need to figure this out quickly, and we shouldn’t just do it by email voices. I think an EC discussion is appropriate, and maybe one or more specific proposals to consider. -george From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of John D'Ambrosia Jon, Following up on this – I think then the EC should discuss this. After spending a lengthy period of time reviewing the rules on Friday I found it very interesting how really ambiguous our rules are regarding the plenary sessions, such as the duration or the actual start / end times. There is nothing
that states that the EC opening / closing meetings shall be done F2F. I believe the procedural issues should be moved to virtual opening and closing meetings that happen outside of the F2F meeting time. For the July and future plenaries, the EC should prioritize any F2F meeting time to our volunteers to
allow them to work. The EC has clearly demonstrated that it can address these issues virtually.
I think this is important to ensure the meeting being planned is the meeting that will best meet the needs of 802.
Paul – was this part of the charter of the ad hoc formed to determine future meeting planning for 802 Plenaries?
Regards John From: Jon Rosdahl <jrosdahl@ieee.org>
Hi John, I was not looking to change the normal Plenary session planning. The EC has not directed that, and the planning is set by them. As to the room sizing, we are working with the hotel on determining how to fit as many rooms as possible to meet our needs. As we get closer, we will let each WG know the resources that are available, and expect them (just as in the past) to plan accordingly. There is no magic here...we have so many square feet of space, and so many chairs. We will assign rooms to WG to utilize effectively and efficiently. This is not a change in the process. Jon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Rosdahl Engineer, Senior Staff
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:30 PM <jdambrosia@gmail.com> wrote:
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 |