RE: [EFM] Make up meeting
I would appreciate it if you could communicate your suggestions for
alternate meeting technology/proposals directly to Howard Frazier privately
instead of airing them on the reflector.
Let's leave it to Howard to filter ideas and figure out what is worthy of
being put forth to the group as a real proposal.
Appropriate use of the reflector is:
Technical discussions regarding the work of the group
Announcements from WG and TF officers regarding the business of
| Geoffrey O. Thompson |
| Chair IEEE 802.3 |
| Nortel Networks, Inc. M/S SC5-02 |
| 4401 Great America Parkway |
| P. O. Box 58185 |
| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185 USA |
| Phone: +1 408 495 1339 |
| Fax: +1 408 495 5615 |
| E-Mail: thompson@xxxxxxxx |
| Please see the IEEE 802.3 web page at |
| To download your FREE copy of Std. IEEE 802.3 |
At 01:42 PM 9/14/01 -0700, Bob Hines wrote:
>My previous employer, Nortel, used to have a system to do web based
>presentations, PowerPoint and teleconference. We used to used it all the
>time to do remote product training sessions as an ongoing educational
>program. Now I'm not volunteering anybody's network, or if it is even
>possible, but if these study groups (all that travel) had access to this
>medium, it could prove as very productive. I believe that video conference
>rooms around the world still exist, maybe a carrier might want to donate
>some hours to the cause. I do believe that if the IEEE IETF ITU or
>whomever the governing bodies are, jointly asked, the
>telecommunication/computer community for assistance, they might get it.
>[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Bob Barrett
>Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 12:16 PM
>To: Roy Bynum; josude@xxxxxxxxx; Ed Eckert; Vladimir Oksman; Howard
>Subject: RE: [EFM] Make up meeting
>I think that we can make significant progress by applying some of the
>travel budgets we have all saved to conference calls this coming week. We
>are all in the comms business at the end of the day, not the travel
>business :-). It 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 text
>copy of their planned verbal presentation then this can go on the web
>site. 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 for
>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 at
>the start of the November meeting than at the end of it. We should be able
>to get to the same milestones at the end of the November meeting without
>the interim, if we put our minds to it, and use the comms. technology that
>we have at our disposal.