| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Steve – I think it is much more important to figure out what a meeting looks like before we start counting money. The expenses are going to fall out of it, and, for the near term, the contracts are contracts, and they will drive a lot
of the expense. I have great confidence that Mr. Rosdahl and Face-to-Face will work with the model based on who shows up to manage expense. In order to plan, however, we need to know what a viable meeting looks like. We’re asking for functionality here.
When we know that we can start planning expenses. Everyone seems to want to talk about what it costs before we decide if we need a bicycle, a car, or an airplane… Regarding models and how many people show up, I think we can make a safe assumption that you have a reasonable number of people there. Enough that you get a core group in a meeting room. That way, we don’t need to dither with models.
Therefore, I suggest we start with a minimum quantum of people showing up. Assume there’s a reasonable number. Say 30% attendance (at our current virtual attendance, that would be 300 people on site). We can argue forever about a 20% threshold or a 50%
threshold or even higher, but I think we can agree that frankly you don’t have a real ‘in-person meeting track’ if you only have 5 or 10% showing up. Small numbers mean basically you have a co-located group participating in a virtual meeting. Not something
we need to plan extra infrastructure for. If necessary they might be able to do it via hotel wi-fi. So, given reasonable numbers of people, you’re going to have meeting rooms with more than a few folks in it. My bet would be at least some of those people would be presenting, and some would be active in debate. Fairness says you need
to allow remote people to present and participate in debate as well. The principle doesn’t change if you swing the percentages either side of 50%. Even if only 10% of the people CAN’T come due to pandemic, fairness suggests we accommodate that. Note that
I’m not talking about ‘choosing not to come’. The reality is that right now and for the foreseeable future there will be a reasonable percentage of people unable to travel because governmental restrictions mean they either CAN’T or would have to sacrifice
multiple weeks of their lives for one week of meeting. Therefore, in the near-term, we need to plan to handle even small numbers of remote attendees with fairness, and it drives the meeting model & practices. Those practices will drive the equipment, support,
venue and network needs. At the point we have such a meeting model, our meeting planning staff can figure out the most cost effective way to handle it and propose fee structures to the EC considering the total expense of the meeting. I expect this will end up
being different than just a virtual meeting or just a face-to-face meeting – but we need to figure out WHAT we need to do first. -george From: Steve Shellhammer <sshellha@qti.qualcomm.com> George, Thanks for setting up this meeting. There are going to be expenses for the Face-to-Face meeting (Rooms, etc.) and there will be expenses for the Remote Access (Audio/Video, etc.). It we get good participation in both
the Face-to-Face meeting and the Remote Access, then these expenses may make sense. One thing to consider is what happens if we get good participation in one mode and poor participation in the other? Here are two possibilities worth considering. Case #1
Case #2
In cases like that we may have large expenses that are not used by a lot of people. Regards, Steve From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of George Zimmerman CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
the organization. Just for clarity – The Mixed Mode Adhoc meeting will be held on (Tuesday) 27 July, at 1600-1700 ET. The meeting that we MADE THE DECISION on the date was 9 July. From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of George Zimmerman As agreed at the 9 July 802 EC meeting, I will be holding a meeting of the ad hoc to discuss best practices for holding a mixed mode meeting.
The proposed agenda focuses on refining the document that Paul submitted, at
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/21/ec-21-0157-00-00EC-best-practices-for-mixed-mode-ieee-802-lmsc-sessions.docx , with a prioritized focus on what we can implement in the near-term for initial meetings when we return to face to face meetings, assuming
that a significant number (that is, more than a few isolated cases) are unable to travel (or it would be an undue burden, such as weeks of quarantine on either end) due to restrictions beyond their control. Given the near-term situation, we need to consider concrete practices for these near term meetings so that we can explore the financial and logistical implications well before the
first meeting is held. Long term considerations of the form of 802 meetings are for future consideration. If you have proposals or documents for meeting, especially experience from other groups, please forward. Please reply directly to me (George Zimmerman see
https://www.ieee802.org/wgchairs.shtml for contact information) if you have a contribution you would like discussed. An email list will be made at the first meeting for further discussion among the ad hoc. If you are unable to make the first meeting, and wish to be added, please email me directly,
and I will add you. -george
George Zimmerman, Ph.D. President & Principal CME Consulting, Inc. Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications 310-920-3860 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 |