| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Steve, Beth, Chad, Andrew, Jon L., John D., and others – I’ve spent quite a while reading through emails this weekend, thinking about the content, and doing a substantial reorganization of the document (so much so that track changes was useless), and incorporating thoughts from these emails.
You can find my revised document as I apologize that it is so substantially different, but I think the new format is clearer, and most of the thoughts are the same. A great thanks to Beth for providing a clearer organization of the document, separating definitions, equipment, roles and practices. Also, thanks to Jon Lewis, for an offline review of the document. A few things I want to set straight:
That said, I have highlighted questions and new thoughts in the document with yellow highlight. Things I expect to have a lot of discussion on (and therefore aren’t set). Some of the biggest questions from the email trail revolve around 2 issues:
These are substantial issues with long-term repercussions. On the first, I suggest that 802 can’t really be an arbiter of why an attendee isn’t coming to the meetings. We can ask for attestation, and rely on the integrity and ethics of our attendees to honestly answer. We all assert that we attend
these meetings under the IEEE code of ethics. As far as enforcement, I suggest 802 can also monitor the travel situation and see if it appears we are getting honest responses, and take corrective action if need be. On the second, I would suggest that establishing a second class of remote attendee is something to consider for the long term, but we should not burden ourselves with it now. We have too much to do. I would NOT support 802 putting individual
members into a class with reduced privileges without due process, and I do not believe we need to define that at this time. -george From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>
On Behalf Of Steve Shellhammer Hi Beth, I am not proposing Mixed-Mode (Hybrid, sorry I used the older term) meetings at all. I am just participating in George’s Ad Hoc on the Best Practices for Mixed-Mode meetings. I have been commenting on this Best Practices
document on Mixed-Mode meetings, which is kind of a rules document as I understand it correctly. Maybe George can clarify if my understanding is correct. I presume at some point the Executive Committee will need to decide if we go directly to In-Person or have some Mixed-Mode meetings before returning to In-Person meetings. George has mentioned several time that we will
definitely be going to Orlando in March, so I presume we will need to decide no later than for that meeting. Regards, Steve From: Beth Kochuparambil (edonnay) <edonnay@cisco.com>
WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Thanks Steve. I don’t know that you fully addressed my questions, but it helps my understand your viewpoint. Just so I understand, your proposal is to do hybrid meetings for X number of meetings, and then stop that and do in-person only thereafter. Am I understanding you correctly? From: Steve Shellhammer <sshellha@qti.qualcomm.com> Beth, Sure, I can try to elaborate. As you know (and I think you mentioned on the call), different people participate differently in IEEE 802 meetings. Some people make many contributions, ask a lot of questions, generate specification text, perform comment
resolutions, and in some case take on an officer role. While other people sit quietly and take notes. In our rules documents we do not put these people in different categories, charge them different fees, require different tools (e.g. laptop), etc. Our
rules treat them the same. I am suggesting our Hybrid meeting rules should treat people the same. Just like in Face-2-Face meeting, some Remote participates will be very active and make lots of contributions and some will not. I do not think our
rules should treat them differently. Similarly, our rules do not say who can attend the Face-2-Face meetings and who cannot. We do say they need to pay the fee and act respectfully, etc. Similarly, I do not think we should restrict who can participate remotely. I think our Hybrid Meeting Rules should be fair and nondiscriminatory. Now, I much prefer Face-2-Face meetings, and like Ben hope to get back to that soon. However, some people are arguing that in the transition phase we may want to have several Hybrid meetings. I am not sure I agree, but
if we do I want the Hybrid Meeting Rules to be fair and nondiscriminatory. I hope that helps. Regards, Steve From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>
On Behalf Of Beth Kochuparambil (edonnay) WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Steve and Ben – Do you mind please helping me understand your thoughts here? If we do NOT enable inactive and active remote participation from the beginning, how do you see getting those that just don’t WANT to travel back in the room? If they are able to participate and vote remote for a year or two (because,
let’s be honest COVID restrictions in some shape or form are going to last longer than any of us want them to), What justification will the EC have to suddenly remove it as an option? Take COVID out of the picture, there has always been a few people that
couldn’t travel for one reason or another. I believe the implications of NOT enabling a remote active and remote inactive status are and will drive our long term decisions. Whereas making the distinction up front gives us options. At this point, due to COVID, I suspect that 95%
of our standards body could argue a travel restriction (by country or company) and thus would fit under the remote-active category. ~Beth From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>
On Behalf Of John D'Ambrosia All, I would caution everyone to making blanket statements based on their experience if they are in a limited number of activities. Here Is my $0.02 The effectiveness, new attendance and participation, IMO have been highly dependent on the topic, meeting and group of individuals. I personally believe that 802 EC style meetings can be run effectively virtually – and the desire for F2F is based on “that’s the way we always did it” Based on my study group and task force - I have had two totally different experiences –
The IEEE P802.3cw Task Force experience has been more akin to what Chad describes where it often appears tough to fill up the time for a call. However, I think this is related to the standard itself, and there are a limited number of
experts in the world. I have seen some slight pickups in attendance and participation from people who I am not sure would participate otherwise. The Beyond 400 Gb/s Study Group has been the total opposite – attendance / participation – up, easy to fill up and go past 3 hr meeting limits, and people are making it work. However, I will also note that there have been times where
F2F would have helped – so even in a single group – there may be times where the F2F would have helped. However, a hybrid environment would not allow a full read of the room, so I think our past experiences may be subject to change based on the use of the
hybrid model. Therefore, I would be against broad statements and limited approaches to satisfy a group that has had its own experience without permitting other groups that have been able to be effective to have a tool at its disposal as well. And I don’t think we can blame burnout on IEEE – other groups are doing this – as are businesses – clearly this is a sign of the times. J From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>
On Behalf Of Chad Jones (cmjones) Geoff, I will add that I’ve learned that I have what appears to be increased attendance, but I have not noticed an increase in participation. In fact, I’m having a hard time filling a two-hour meeting every other week. I’m seeing teleconference
meeting burn out for sure. Chad Jones Technical Leader, Cisco Systems Chair, IEEE P802.3da Task Force Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3 From:
"thompson@ieee.org" <thompson@ieee.org> Folks- While I might have worded my sentiments differently, I fully agree with Chad. The legacy quality of our meetings (and thus of our products) is highly dependent on the full 3 dimensional bandwidth (time > 2hours, face2face vs network, mtg room+hallway+bar+meals
vs network+phone+e-mail) of Face 2 Face meetings. We have all experienced this and I think all agree with it. (The SA does. That's why they have been sending staff to our meetings for years) We have done "remote participation" over the last 18 months because it was better than nothing. The trick over the "short term" (i.e. that period in time when we have our 1st F2F mtg and when travel is "as easy" as it was before) is how do we get the value from and to our
participants who can't yet travel because of the lingering effects of Covid. The trick over the "long term" (i.e. when travel is "as easy" as it was before) is how do get back to normal or better based on what we have learned during the "days of remote." I'm not sure that we have learned anything that is beneficial during the "days of remote" other than (a) we get increased attendance with remote access and (b) people prefer paying
less money with remote access. Just my 2 cents. Geoff Thompson GraCaSI S.A./Independent On Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 02:00:56 PM PDT, Chad Jones (cmjones) <00000b60b3f54e8d-dmarc-request@ieee.org>
wrote: I disagree with Steve. I don’t want remote attendees expecting an identical experience to an in-person meeting. We all know there are limitations based
on the last 18 months. I don’t want this falling on the chair to ensure parity for remote versus local attendees – and we all know there are people that will complain that they were disenfranchised when they chose to not attend in person. I like dividing into
classes to correctly set expectations. Cheers, Chad Jones Technical Leader, Cisco Systems Chair, IEEE P802.3da Task Force Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3 From:
***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org> on behalf of Steve Shellhammer <sshellha@QTI.QUALCOMM.COM> All, I do not see why whether the participant cannot attend in person or chooses not to attend in person will affect the person’s level of
participation. It seems to me the level of participation for a remote participant depends on whether the participate can join the Meeting Tool (e.g.
WebEx) or is just on Audio. If the person can join the Meeting Tool, then the participant can see and hear the presentation, and can ask questions and can give
a presentation. I cannot support dividing remote participants into classes based on why they are not attending in person. I am fine with requiring a computer to join the Meeting Tool and if the participate only has an Audio connection (which is rare) they
must live with the fact they are not on the Meeting Tool. Regards, Steve From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>
On Behalf Of Beth Kochuparambil (edonnay) WARNING:
This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros. Hello Team – Thanks for a good discussion today! The proposed Guiding Principle as in the document: When remote participation is the only means of participating for a significant portion of the attendees, then we should
strive to provide an equivalent experience for in person and remote participants. If remote participation is optional, the remote participant may not have an equivalent experience to an in person participant.
A suggested modification and added principles for discussion:
In our discussions, the questions were asked, how do we determine travel restrictions of individuals. I could see using something such as
https://www.iatatravelcentre.com/world.php (or likewise, if announced) to verify information entered at the time of registration. As long as a centralized site is used for the meeting,
other sites could also be used/announced by the EC. This is just a suggestion. ~Beth From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>
On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich Dear All, The updated best practices document based on the 16:00-17:00 ET 17 August 2021 meeting is now available at https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/21/ec-21-0157-01-00EC-best-practices-for-mixed-mode-ieee-802-lmsc-sessions.docx. I tried to embed the meeting notes as comments in the document, hopefully you will be able to follow them. The next meeting for further refinement of the Mixed Mode Session Best Practices draft is scheduled for 16:00-17:00 ET Tuesday 24 August 2021. Your
homework assignment prior to that meeting is to draft and share what you consider the core principles for Mixed Mode Sessions should be via this 802 EC reflector. Non-real time exchange and consensus building via the reflector will make next week's call more
productive. Thank you for your time today, --Paul 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 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 |