|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:
1. This is NOT a rules document. Not even close. Rules has to go through the rules process, and we are not ready for that. We need to get on the same page as to what we might do (and find out if it is implementable) before we even begin drafting rules. Think of it as bullet points before drafting and MoU, and the rules would be a definitive agreement. Quite a distance to travel.
2. This description is NOT static or final. I expect it to be revised as we get some experience. We are trying to get a strawman for our FIRST mixed-mode meeting. I fully expect we will learn and revise after the first one. Probably even after the second. I also expect there are likely to be no fewer than 3 such sessions – but that’s just my opinion looking into he future and the uncertainty that surrounds us.
3. No one individual gets to say when we go back to face-to-face, that is for the EC to decide. Financially and contractually not going to Orlando has issues to be worked. If we need to, we will work them – but the decision is the EC’s.
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:
1. Do we put restrictions on what reasons may be offered for individuals not attending in person?
2. Do we have a second class of remote attendee? (an observer or inactive participant)
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.
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