| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
G’day all While I was filing this e-mail away, I came across a discussion thread (attached) from 2009 about the increased use of hybrid and/or remote meetings. The issues in 2009 are similar to today. The
difference today is that we have much better tools. Andrew From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of Steve Shellhammer George, Thanks for the detailed response. I agree we need to ensure that in-person attendance meets a reasonable threshold for a mixed-mode meeting. 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. 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
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 |
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)" <matthew.sherman@baesystems.com>
- Subject: RE: [802SEC] Status on Whitespace Electronic Participation Experiment (Update 2)
- From: "Andrew Myles (amyles)" <amyles@cisco.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:54:48 +0000
- In-reply-to: <E1E816C1E9C63144ACDBCE87F8E29A35321524@BLUMS99912.bluelnk.net>
- References: <A<E1E816C1E9C63144ACDBCE87F8E29A353212B2@BLUMS99912.bluelnk.net> <88D48915ADA39D4493CEB16698E0E16DE431D051@BLUMS99912.bluelnk.net> <4.2.0.58.20090125212658.00baed80@ZRC2HXM0.us.nortel.com> A<3D14C41496A942E995A36E7BB646A779@TonyHPLaptop> <85E3AF00A637054AB8ECE31AF080EB01224F5A@PERIWINKLE.wysiwyg104.com> <7F6D19F02DDA4CFE9DA03E6D01681F5A@TonyHPLaptop> A<70CDE339FEE838489EE9580C31AD5765050477C9@xmb-hkg-414.apac.cisco.com> <E1E816C1E9C63144ACDBCE87F8E29A35321524@BLUMS99912.bluelnk.net>
- Thread-index: Acl/gAE7CfiGFaAzR4eoIcEIAXtobQAzzhggAAESZ7AABVODEAATtpkwAApuhyAAAF/u4A==
- Thread-topic: [802SEC] Status on Whitespace Electronic Participation Experiment (Update 2)
G'day Matt I am amazed by the "head in the sand" attitude being displayed by so many :( Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) [mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com] Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2009 11:49 AM To: Andrew Myles (amyles) Subject: RE: [802SEC] Status on Whitespace Electronic Participation Experiment (Update 2) Andrew, By the way, thanks for carrying the flag! While I think it is good to experiment with this stuff, I'm short on time and won't take this fight much further. Note that Verilan noted that all ICANN meetings combine in-person and electronic attendance. Might be tips there for how to do things. Also I too think less face to face and more pure electronic is a good way forwards. Hope all is well, 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@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles) Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:34 PM To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] Status on Whitespace Electronic Participation Experiment (Update 2) G'day all, Many years ago, we shuffled pieces of paper around the room at standards meetings and signed up by looking for a balloon. Since then technology, such as PC's, LCD's, WLANs, document databases, attendance software, etc, has mostly improved the efficiency of our standards development operations. As an aside: at the the 802.11 interim meeting in Cairns some years ago the link to the internet was unusable during sessions (it was a single ADSL line). It was interesting that there was far more focus on the material being presented and less on e-mail and the web. It almost inspired me to ask that we turn the external link off during sessions ;) We have a responsibility to look for ways to use technology to improve the way we do things even more. We have now reached the point where the various remote collaboration tools are workable, certainly for smaller groups of people and increasingly for larger groups of people. It is inevitable that they will begin to replace many F2F meetings in the future. The only open question is when we start taking advantage of these new tools. Given the current economic environment and the severe pressure on travel budgets, now seems like a perfect time to start the experimentation process, with the goal of eventually reducing the number of F2F meetings. If we don't, we might find that our standards suffer anyway because many key stakeholders are not allowed to attend F2F meetings. We are already starting to see a trend with attendance at many SDO's down by 30-50%. The White Space SG is a great opportunity to evaluate the tools and understand better where they work well, how they can be refined, and how we can change the way we do things to make best use of them. I suspect he have discovered a hybrid meeting does not work very well because of the asymmetry between remote and on-site attendees. The failings of White Space SG does not mean a fully remote meetings will not work. In fact, I suspect they can work better than F2F meetings in many respects. They certainly mean less wasted time in planes and hotels. They can also be more flexibly scheduled and be more focused on the technical work. One problem they do not solve is time zones, meaning many participants will need to learn to work at ungodly hours of the day and night. Fully remote meetings are also not ideal for consensus building. There is nothing like pressing the flesh and waving your arms around to get agreement from individuals and groups of people. For this reason there is a good reason for F2F meetings in the future, but maybe not so many of them. At the final session of the 802.11 WG last week, I made a motion: The 802.11 WG requests the WG Chair to investigate new modes of WG operation, including the possible cancellation of future interim sessions and an increased use of remote collaboration tools. Any transition to the new mode of operation should be possible in a way that is financially responsible and that allows the WG to continue to develop high quality standards The motion failed 11/28. I did not expect the idea of cancelling interim meetings to be very popular. However, I was very disappointed that merely investigating the possibility generated so much angst. One possibility is that the people who would have voted "yes" were not in the room because they either had to leave early to save costs or were not allowed to attend at all, whereas the people in the room are the ones that are "invested" in the status quo. Admittedly some voted "no" because they did not think the WG should direct the Chair to do something that is already within the scope of his duties. Bruce Kraemer has stated that he is going to investigate the options anyway, despite the failed motion. That is the right thing to do. A number of areas need investigation, including * Can currently scheduled interim meetings be cancelled in such a way that the financial impact is minimised? * Should we schedule any further interim meetings? * Do we need to change the voting and attendance rules to allow increased use of remote meetings? * How should we handle the "time zone" issue for remote meetings, given we claim to be "international"? * What tools are appropriate, and how could they be refined? * How can the tools be financed? * ... Bruce should be congratulated for taking up this issue on behalf of the 802.11 WG. However, ExCom also needs to consider these issues too. A good first step would be to agree to the principle that we are heading for a time where F2F meetings will be less frequent than today Andrew Myles -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2009 9:31 PM To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] Status on Whitespace Electronic Participation Experiment (Update 2) Bob - I don't think the two situations are *at all* comparable, other than at the trivial level of both involving the use of new technology. (And just for the record, I was in favour of the use of LCD's; the technology introduction that I recall being most controversial was the introduction of LANs at our meetings, and personally, I think the jury is still out on whether that has improved the quality of our meetings, or whether it has simply allowed us to while away the time doing solitaire or reading emails while we freeze our butts in chilly meeting rooms). The big difference with electronic participation is that, as you point out in your post, it only works effectively (under some definition of effectively) if you reduce the whole meeting to the lowest common denominator, i.e., handicap all of the participants with the restrictions that the technology imposes. Otherwise, you create 2 classes of participation, with all of the problems that that will inevitably involve. At that point, you may as well abandon face to face meetings altogether and go entirely electronic; while that may be attractive in the current economic climate, I believe it would considerably reduce the quality of our meetings. Regards, Tony -----Original Message----- From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara Sent: 27 January 2009 08:14 To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] Status on Whitespace Electronic Participation Experiment (Update 2) This discussion gives me a curious sense of déjà vu. It seems that I heard many of these same refrains when digital projectors were first being used in our meetings. There was a lot of time wasted as presenters tried to get their computers to talk to the projectors. Chairs and secretaries had to juggle things on their screens whenever they needed to use the projector for a presentation. *sigh* I'm sure glad we decided not to adopt that terrible technology in our meetings. I think that the limitations of the electronic participation technology should be recognized and that technology utilized for what it does best, allowing more people to participate in the standardization process, making our process more open and transparent. It accomplishes this by making it possible for people to at least observe the process without the expense of travel and lodging required for in-person participation. Using this technology might require a bit of, dare I say it, "change" by the people that are physically present, e.g., all presenters must present through the electronic participation software, using the pointing tools (no laser pointers) in the application so that remote participants get the most information possible from the meeting. This begins to familiarize everyone with the application, making use of it mostly as a "delivery-only" mechanism. As more people become familiar with it, the tool will become second nature, just like those infernal digital projectors. The next steps would require some careful thought and planning, opening the feedback channel from remote participants to allow for questions and comments and perfecting the process for conducting straw polls of all participants (both physically present and remote). Should this prove to be viable, it would seem that all the tools would be in place for a completely virtual meeting, no longer discriminating between those in one physical location and those in any other physical location. This final step would need very careful consideration of what it means to be a "member" and how that membership is defined, obtained, and retained. At that future point, the question of membership might become "should membership be defined by the amount of time an individual spends numbing their butt in a particular chilly conference room in a designated city, or should it be defined by something more constructive to the process of developing a standard?". It seems to me that opening our process to more participants would be a good thing, to be sought out and worked on. -Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802- > SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 11:20 PM > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Status on Whitespace Electronic Participation > Experiment (Update 2) > > I agree. As far as I can tell, this experiment has simply confirmed to > me that it is inappropriate to use a mix of electronic and F2F > participation in the same meeting, other than in very limited > circumstances. > > Regards, > Tony > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802- > SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson > Sent: 26 January 2009 05:44 > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Status on Whitespace Electronic Participation > Experiment (Update 2) > > Mat- > > My opinion remains. > > The best that can be hoped for with remote participation at this level > of tools is somewhat handicapped observation. > > Doing presentations from afar is pretty ineffective, if not hopeless > in terms of convincing a body of people in a room about something, > much less entering into a true interactive discussion. > > Geoff > > =========================================================== > At 08:48 PM 1/25/2009 , Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote: > EC and Whitespace Members, > > I just wanted to give some feedback on the experiment. It closed out > on Thursday, but given my redeye flight and other commitments I > haven't been able to report out till now. > > Overall, Thursday wasn't much different then Wednesday. The basic > teleconference and webex presentation facilities worked well. > Occasionally people needed slight reminders to talk louder, etc. But it was very workable. > > Things got a bit flustered when a participant made a couple of > surprise motions. Per prior agreement, the webex participants were > not allowed to vote. So we had traditional hand votes which went fine > but required a little explanation to the electronic participants. > > The one clear failure in the experiment was the polling facility. We > tried it Wednesday, and had operating difficulties. We tried it again > Thursday for strawpolls to collect data for the experiment. Again we > were caught by the need to change presenters and who was projecting, > etc. It is very cumbersome if you don't keep all that interaction on > one machine. We got farther along this time. We pre-prepared the > polling questions, and actually did launch the polls. Unfortunately > the questions had not been saved properly and there was an error in > one of the questions. Also, we invited all the in-room participants > to take the stawpoll via the webex. This did not work well at all. > Some participants were still unsure of how to get into the webex. > Others started the process, but required downloads that were going to > take '40 minutes'. In the end, we were only able to collect partial > data, so I feel it better to just call the poll invalid, and run the > stawpolls again to collect the data. I will give participants the > option of doing it electronically on the next call, or in written form. > > I will provide a more formal slide set to the EC for the March > meetings. My personal view is that electronic participation is very > workable for teleconference and presentations, but the polling > facility needs no work. I'd like to have an electronic voting > capability at meetings anyway, so in my opinion the next experiment > should be to try out a web based voting system that could be accessed > from inside and outside of the meeting. I don't think I have the time > to purse this in the near future. I do believe that any formal > electronic participation at interims will require payment of > attendance fees, so we'd need to establish a way of doing that as > well. Obviously much more discussion is required prior to us formally allowing this (if at all). > > Best regards, > > Mat > > Matthew Sherman > Chair, IEEE802 Whitespace ECSG > BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS) > Office: +1 973.633.6344 > Cell: +1 973.229.9520 > email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com > <mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com> > > ________________________________ > > From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:21 AM > To: WHITESPACE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > Subject: RE: Status on Whitespace Electronic Participation Experiment > (Update 1) > > > > EC and Whitespace Members: > > > > Here is a quick update on the Electronic Participation Experiment. > Yesterday was a smaller crowd. I estimate 60 in the room (there was > flux and not everyone registers attendance), and 16 on the webex. We > tried to run things less formally to see what would happen. There > were a couple of hiccups with one or two individuals on the > teleconference forgetting the established etiquettes and ultimately > requiring reminders. But it was not particularly disruptive. I would > say most of the meeting went smoothly. I felt it moved a little > faster than the prior day by that is very subjective and other might not agree. > > > > We completed our agenda a bit early and went to experiment with the > electronic stawpolls. We had a problem in that I had to be presenter > rather than Steve to compose the stawpolls. In retrospect I probably > should have ask Steve to compose them. When I did take control of the > presentations on my PC, I needed to project the screen for the room as > well, and that caused my screen format to change which prevented me > from finding some of the buttons I needed. So I couldn't set up the > stawpolls. Eventually I figured out that when I disconnect the > projector from my computer I can find all the right buttons and > compose the poll. By the time I got the poll composed, at least one > individual had gone to the mike and complained that this was a waste > of people's time and money. I don't recall if the person was > referring to the nature of the question being polled, or the general > process itself (I think he was mostly objecting to the question being polled). > Regardless, the polling did not go smoothly. > > > > We will attempt the polling process again today and be better prepared. > Yesterday was a good warm-up! > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mat > > > > Matthew Sherman > Chair, IEEE802 Whitespace ECSG > BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS) > Office: +1 973.633.6344 > Cell: +1 973.229.9520 > email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com > <mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com> > > ________________________________ > > From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) > [mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:58 AM > To: WHITESPACE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > Subject: [WHITESPACE] Status on Whitespace Electronic Participation > Experiment > > > > EC and Whitespace Members, > > > > The electronic participation experiment is not over yet. It will be > running for two more days but here are some early observations. > > > > Overall I felt one participant best summed it up saying 'it works, but > the pace is that of a large meeting with a couple of hundred people'. > I agreed with this opinion, but others may feel differently. We were > able to make study progress, but it felt like we were in a larger > 802.11 or > 802.16 session. In actuality we had about 90 people in the room and > 20 on the webex. > > > > The hybrid device which allows the phone line to couple to the PA > system and vice versa I feel is essential for any large in-person > meeting. It seems to generally work well. Installing it wasn't very > difficult, but I did need to request some cables from the hotels A/V > staff to get it plugged in. We had some initial leveling problems > when we started the meeting today. I believe these were all resolved > within about 15 minutes and hope to have no start up issues when we start tomorrow. > > > > It was strongly recommended that we use Microphones with switches on > them. I did try everything out last night and requested the hotel > staff to switch out the mikes in the room (which had no switches) with > mikes that did. This was slightly problematic since they don't > normally use mikes with switches, but they eventually found a couple > of older mikes with switches that worked fine. In the end, we left > the mikes on all the time. There did not seem to be a need to switch them on and off. > But since different hotels will have different equipment, it might not > be a bad idea in general. > > > > Steve Shellhammer chaired the meeting, and I focused on making sure > the electronic participation ran as smoothly as possible. > Unfortunately, Steve and I weren't quite prepared enough. We had some > connectivity problems that had nothing to do with the experiment, and > we had to switch rolls a couple of times so I could present documents. > This was a bit awkward with us occasionally having the wrong screen > projected, and some dead time while we switched roles. It wasn't a > show killer, but it make for some slightly awkward moments. We > understand the issues a little better now, so we should be better > prepared for tomorrow. My take away was that we don't really need two people to run the show. > Rather we need one person with two screens. There is too much info to > monitor it all on a single screen, but it isn't really that bad to > monitor if you have two screens. I started monitoring both Steve's > screen and mine, and it didn't seem that hard to follow the > presentations and still monitor the webex. However, I only have one > screen on my computer right now (no one seems to have brought a spare > monitor) so I can't try running the show from a single computer. > > > > We did not get a chance to run any straw polls today, but we will > tomorrow. Also, the room we are in only has bandwidth (and seating) > provisioned for 75 people, and we were close to 100 at points. I > wanted to pull everyone in the room onto the webex to see what would > happen to the network but not everyone had access to the webex info, > so we didn't try. I will post it more widely for tomorrow. > > > > Overall, we had one presenter who was fully remote. While they > couldn't always get feedback from the crowd, overall I felt the > presentation went well. It was very interactive, with dialogue from > both the floor and the webex. We did some local presentations with > substantial dialogue across the webex and from the floor and that > worked well too. Everyone on the webex did a great job of sticking > with the etiquettes we established. We used the chat window to > request the floor, and it worked very well. A number of participants > would send private messages to me. This was a bit un-nerving since > you wanted to respond privately but were always a little concerned > you'd accidently broadcast to everyone. Not that anything really need > to be private, so in generally I'd encourage everyone to use the > public chat and only send private messages when absolutely necessary. > > > > So we aren't done yet, but we seemed to have survived the first day > okay. I'll provide incremental feedback as we go. > > > > Regards to all, > > > > 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 > > > > > ---------- > 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.
--- End Message ---