Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13, 2009Plenary Session for your review
I think we have to temper the ideal with reality. We should have at
least some non-NA meetings but I don't think we can afford to do one EU
and one Asia plenary per year. It isn't only meeting costs either, I'm
also thinking about meeting efficiency - we have NA venues that let us
have all the meeting rooms close together in the same facility as our
hotel rooms. That is harder to find in Europe and Asia and spreading out
hurts the efficiency of our interaction especially given the long hours
we put in at meetings. For example, while we should plan a Geneva
meeting, I know that the meeting rooms at the ITU are spread over a
large facility that complicated ability to move from meeting to meeting
even with just 802.1 and 802.3 meeting there. I support living with that
some of the time to do the right thing but not for 2 out of 3 meetings a
We should move toward being more fair to our non-NA domiciled colleagues
with moderation. For now, I would like to aim for one non-NA meeting a
year and trying to alternate that between Europe and Asia. That leaves
Working Groups the freedom to equalize further with non-NA interims and
the interims being somewhat smaller are a bit easier to arrange in a
variety of places. Since 2010 is already contracted out, 2011 is our
first chance to start doing that.
From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:52 AM
To: 'Rigsbee, Everett O'; Pat Thaler; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13,
2009Plenary Session for your review
Other groups (OMA, 3GPP, 3GPP2, etc.) regularly meet in nNA venues. They
(and their memberships) don't seem to find it problematic at all.
If it's more expensive, (as we know it will be in terms of meeting cost)
that's simply a cost of doing business in terms of meeting our policy
of being a truly international SDO (this is also a goal of the SA, not
Meeting in NA exclusively because "it's cheaper" is, in my view, a
and an inaccurate characterization.
The meeting registration fee may be less, but our EU and Asian
end up carrying all of the burden of the extra travel time, expense, and
and tear on personnel." That is simply not fair. (and would not be
if the meeting fees were equal regardless of venue)
It also fuels the perceptions of some, and the ability of those inclined
assert, that we (and by extension, the IEEE-SA) are "a US-centric" body,
Personally, I believe that of our 3 plenaries, one should be in NA, one
and one in Asia every year. That would be fair.
(Please note that I say this as one who pays his travel expenses for
meetings out of his own pocket ... I am not reimbursed by clients. In
words, cheaper meeting costs (registration, travel, time) would "flow
to my bottom line," but I'm willing to incur the extra expense in order
have us "be what we *should* be."
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.