Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [EFM] Make up meeting

Alright we now know that Bob can't type.  ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: John Pickens [mailto:jpickens@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 5:11 PM
To: Bob Hines; Roy Bynum; bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; josude@xxxxxxxxx;
Ed Eckert; Vladimir Oksman; Howard Frazier;
Subject: RE: [EFM] Make up meeting



At 04:18 PM 9/14/01 -0700, Bob Hines wrote:

>Not my intent at all.  I work for a Fables classifier chip company very
>little to do with the standards shaping process.   Just merely putting
>suggestions forth.
>-----Original Message-----
>[]On Behalf Of Roy Bynum
>Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:25 PM
>To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; josude@xxxxxxxxx; Ed Eckert; Vladimir
>Oksman; Howard Frazier;
>Subject: RE: [EFM] Make up meeting
>As an additional note, I have always had problems with closed groups that
>become voting blocks within 802.3.  If you are going to start conference
>calls, make them available to all 200+ people that are participating in the
>P802.3ah TF.
>Thank you,
>Roy Bynum
>At 08:15 PM 9/14/01 +0100, Bob Barrett wrote:
> >Dear all
> >
> >I think that we can make significant progress by applying some of the
> >budgets we have all saved to conference calls this coming week. We are
> >in the comms business at the end of the day, not the travel business :-).
> >would be hard to find a week between now and November that would work for
> >all of the active participants. Here is my suggestion:
> >
> >If those that were going to present technical proposals can produce a
> >copy of their planned verbal presentation then this can go on the web
> >Those that are interested can then use the text along side the pdf of the
> >PPT to get a good idea of the pitch.
> >
> >We have four sub-groups already. There are some 'alternative technical
> >proposals' in each of these, shall we say, being polite :-). The possible
> >exception is p2p, but even then the OAM camp is split into at least two
> >mutually exclusive alternatives at the moment.
> >
> >It takes 75% to get any one technical proposal adopted.
> >
> >So let's use the time available to establish how much support there is
> >each alternative within each sub-group.
> >
> >If the group is so fractionated on any one key technical proposal that
> >getting to 75% looks impossible, then the group can have battles royal in
> >Houston on each of them to decide what to do. Rather get to that status
> >the start of the November meeting than at the end of it. We should be
> >to get to the same milestones at the end of the November meeting without
> >interim, if we put our minds to it, and use the comms. technology that we
> >have at our disposal.
> >
> >Best regards
> >
> >Bob