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

Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or

Pat -

I'm sure they like people ;-)


At 17:44 27/11/2007, Pat Thaler wrote:
>You can see mentions at the reviews on The reviewer on
>Jun 4, 2007 mentions seeing a pack from his car while driving to the
>airport at 6 AM. This was a fairly positive review otherwise so it
>doesn't seem like it is fabricated. The review on May 15, 2007 also
>mentions them. It sounds like walking to the train station in the
>evening or early morning could be a problem.
>I've also come across a review (on that mentions some
>of the breakout rooms having "many huge posts right in the middle of
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:26 PM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
>Mat -
>Comments interspersed below.
>At 04:25 27/11/2007, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> >Mike / All,
> >
> >I'm still withholding my vote.
> >
> >I voted abstain last time because I didn't feel we were given enough
> >time to consider the matter.  I will come off the fence this time, but
> >I'm not sure which side yet.
> >
> >I currently favor voting against this motion.  Rome would be a hardship
> >(for me as well as the group).  Yes, there is financial risk, but we
> >have dealt with financial insecurity before, and will face it again.
> >This is a new experience, and by definition we have a lot to learn.
> >whatever happens we will benefit from the experience and it will help
> >refine our techniques for selecting future Non-NA meeting sites.
>I think there is a big difference between dealing with financial
>eventualities that we cannot predict and going into a situation with
>open eyes that we can see is highly likely to be a financial
>disaster. IMHO the latter is where we would be going with Rome.
> >As for the poll, I can't help but feel that IEEE802 was presented with
> >only half the story.  Unfortunately, I could not attend the activities
> >that developed the poll, but it seemed more focused on the raw cost,
> >presented little rationale as to why the extra financial costs and
> >may be warranted.  Here are some rationales in favor of staying the
> >course with Rome:
> >
> >1) We seem to have forgotten the original rationale for doing non-NA
> >plenarys to begin with.  While we can poll the people who attended the
> >last 802 in Atlanta, we can't poll any of the people who didn't because
> >Atlanta was not a convenient location for them to attend.  By
> >the poll is biased because it did not include the many people who might
> >have attended IEEE802 if it were in Europe or Asia, but couldn't
> >it was in Atlanta.  In short, we don't know who we are disenfranchising
> >from the IEEE802 process, and can't unless we take IEEE802 to other
> >locations and see what happens.
>That is true - we clearly don't know what we don't know. However,
>from the survey information, we *can* see who we are likely to be
>disenfranchising in our existing population of attendees, and it is a
>significant number of people. That is hard to ignore on the basis
>that it might be a smaller number of people than the ones we might be
>disenfranchising but that we don't know about. As I have said, it is
>a significant enough problem that it will probably mean at least one
>of my task groups in 802.1 won't be viable at that meeting, and we
>may have to consider holding a separate meeting for that TG to make
> >2)  In my opinion Vancouver should never have been considered.  The
> >requirements for this meeting (as I recall) were that it should be
> >non-NA.  It's not even clear to me why Vancouver was on the list to
> >begin with as it did not meet the stated requirements.
>I think you are way off base here. From all the evidence that has
>come to light in the discussions of the Rome venue, it is Rome that
>should never have been considered. It just doesn't meet our needs as
>a meeting venue. In contrast, Vancouver works just fine.
>If what you mean is that we should never have been presented with a
>choice between a (suitable) NA and a (suitable) nNA venue, I would
>agree; however, fixing that by presenting a completely unsuitable nNA
>venue as the only choice makes no sense to me.
> >3) In my mind Vancouver is the 'easy way out'.  Yes we would have a
> >successful session in Vancouver (we've had many before).  But I'm
> >worried if we bail now, it will just bail again and again in the
> >If I understand correctly, we spent 3 years trying to set up the non-NA
> >session for 2009, and Rome was the best we can do? The next opportunity
> >for a non-NA meeting is 2011, and I see no evidence that we will do any
> >better then.  I am worried about establishing a pattern of taking the
> >easy way out an never going non-NA because it is just too hard.  I
> >really feel if we don't try, we won't learn from our mistakes.
>I'm sorry - it makes no sense to me to choose a venue that we know
>ahead of time is highly likely to be a disaster just so that we can
>"learn from our mistakes". That makes about as much sense as walking
>into the middle of a busy freeway so you can learn that playing with
>the traffic is a really bad idea.
> >4) Other organizations seem to make this work.  IETF is the closest
> >example I can think of.  Why is it they can do it, and we can't?
>Thats a good question, and we need to find out how they do it.
>However, they clearly haven't succeeded by choosing unsuitable
>venues. Neither will we.
> >5) Other IEEE meetings (MILCOM is the most recent one I have attended)
> >regularly have registration fees over $1000, and yet have 4000
> >attendees, and charge >$250 per night for rooms in Orlando.  Some have
> >argued that IEEE802 has plenarys 3 times a year, so it's not a fair
> >comparison.  But we are only going non-NA once every two years at the
> >moment.  If once every two years we have a meeting that costs about the
> >same as what other IEEE meetings normally cost, (I'm assuming many of
> >our attendee will find cheaper hotels for $250/night) then I don't see
> >this as an issue.
>Different population. Different industry sector. Different drivers
>and constraints. I don't see the relevance of the comparison to our
> >6) A prior poll of IEEE802 seemed to favor Rome.  So we sort of have
> >conflicting info in front of us. Assumedly price is what turned the
> >community against Rome, but it's not clear to me the issues were
> >properly presented.  Hotel costs should have been decoupled from
> >registration fees in the question.
>There are all sorts of factors that may have affected the results:
>- Later poll, therefore based on more complete information (therefore
>more relevant).
>- Different voting population. The population that attends plenaries
>is not the same as the population that attends interims - looking at
>my attendance records, we get far more people showing up at plenaries
>as first time attendees, for example. I would argue that as we were
>choosing a plenary venue, asking the plenary population is likely to
>give the more relevant answer.
>- Shifts both in costs and the exchange rate have made Rome look even
>less attractive.
>- There has been time for attendees to discuss with their management
>since the interim - maybe if they had been able to do that for the
>interim poll the answer would have been different.
>- Etc.
> >7) While I don't like the venue in Rome, we have been left with no
> >Non-NA choices.  I still think there are things that can be done to
> >improve the situation.  For instance, we could run a bus service (even
> >if only twice a day) to / from a central location in Rome.  Many people
> >commute in their daily lives.  People drive and take cabs.  If the Cab
> >fare is $50 each way, but it saves you $200 on your room, perhaps that
> >is worth it.
>I think Pat already de-bunked this one. Even ignoring the cost of
>running sufficient coaches, we're talking a major logistical
>nightmare here - with more than half of our attendees having to find
>hotels off-site, that means shifting 800+ people from the hotel to
>central Rome at peak times. That's just not going to happen.
> >8) Something I don't see being accounted is that not everyone is
> >spending dollars.  If someone is paid in Euros or Yen, will they still
> >perceive these costs are as out of line as Americans might?  If they
> >already travel regularly in Europe, they might view the costs
> >differently.  Also the costs presented are speculative.  It is still
> >possible that the dollar will be stronger by the time we go to Rome,
> >the difference in cost might not be so dramatic.
>Even priced in Euros or Pounds, those prices look too high to me.
>Yes, anything could happen to the exchange rates - the US economy
>could suddenly enter another boom, for example. I'm not holding my
>breath. In the meantime, this place is expensive.
> >Anyway, I encourage further debate and comment before we conclude this.
> >I will probably wait another day before casting my vote and see how
> >others respond to my comments above.
> >
> >Mat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> >Engineering Fellow
> >BAE Systems -  Network Systems (NS)
> >Office: +1 973.633.6344
> >Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> >email:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> >[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Michael Takefman
> >Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:08 PM
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
> >
> >All,
> >
> >With all due respect to John and tongue somewhat held in cheek.
> >
> >Canada's visa requirements are significantly different then those of
> >
> >12th through 62nd
> >southern provinces. Thus sessions held south of the border are
> >definitely
> >viewed as
> >non-Canadian although clearly North American to our visitors from
> >elsewhere
> >in the globe.
> >
> >That being said, I agree that the Vancouver session does not meet the
> >"non-N/A"
> >goal, but from what I've read on the reflector, is more likely to be a
> >better session
> >then Rome.
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >mike
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "J Lemon" <jlemon@IEEE.ORG>
> >Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:16 PM
> >Subject: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
> >
> >
> > > If you are inclined to vote against Rome, think before you vote for
> > > Vancouver. Vancouver is not the logical alternative to Rome. If we
> >can't
> > > get a European or Asian venue this time, then the next best venue
> >would
> > > at least be non-NA. I know that people are afraid of Hawaii being
> > > as a vacation trip. But I also know that it is very popular among
> > > participants coming from Asia, and it is definitely non-NA. Sure, it
> >is
> > > still the US, but does anyone other than Canadians (hi Mike) really
> >view
> > > Canada as being a non-American venue? Vancouver does little if
> >anything
> > > to ease the Americancentric appearance, and does nothing to
> > > the travel burden of those from other continents. Rome may not be
> > > best choice, but neither is Vancouver. Until a venue is proposed
> > > addresses at least some of the problems we were trying to solve, I
> > > you to reject switching to a random venue of convenience.
> > >
> > > John Lemon
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> >This
> > > list is maintained by Listserv.
> > >
> >
> >----------
> >This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> >This list is maintained by Listserv.
> >
> >----------
> >This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> >reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.