Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
Point of order ...
There is a motion on the floor (mine) and it has been seconded (by Mat).
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 2:09 PM
> To: Paul Nikolich; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for
> 2011 and 2012
>
> I would be willing to second or make a motion as Tony
> suggests. Proposed
> text for a motion is below.
>
> Buzz, what is the situation for July 2011? Are we open to a non-North
> American location for that?
> I would prefer to be able to say March or July because
> university venues
> would maily be for a summer meeting.
>
> The process below is what Roger proposed except:
> Changed date for getting draft facility requirements to 15
> January to give prospective hosts a little more time to find a
> prospective venue fitting the requirements.
> Changed last bullet to plural for "proposals" to cover 2011 and
> 2012.
>
> I suggest a motion as follows:
>
> To adopt the following process for finding and choosing non-North
> American plenary venues for March 2011 and March or July 2012
>
> (1) by 15 January: IEEE 802 Executive Secretary issues a
> draft set of
> facility requirements and issues a Request for Interest (RfI)
> seeking
> a letter of intent from any prospective hosts.
> (2) 7 March: Deadline for letter of intent that would name
> prospective host and venue but without a firm commitment to host.
> (3) 21 March: 802 EC approves a request for proposals (RfP),
> including facility requirements and hosting specifications, with a
> specific submittal template to allow ready intercomparison. 802 EC
> also authorizes travel expenses for site visits to prospective hosts
> identified by letter of intent.
> (4) 20 June: Deadline for host proposals issued in response
> to the RfP.
> (5) 1 July: Executive Secretary submits report summarizing proposals
> and results of site visits.
> (6) 14 July: During a tutorial slot, host candidates overview their
> proposals.
> (7) 18 July: 802 EC votes to accept proposals.
>
> Regards,
> Pat
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:42 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802SEC] a sensible way forward? nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
>
> All,
>
> Tony's suggestion: "... I would prefer to see us pass a
> motion accepting
>
> Roger's proposed process (or some near variant thereof) for choosing
> potential nNA venues in the future, and that we follow up by actually
> getting our hands dirty with finding some candidates to
> choose between."
>
> makes sense to me.
>
> FYI the SASB meetings are being held this week and I need to
> pay close
> attention to what is happening down there in FL, so I'd like to put
> taking
> any action on the nNA issue on hold for a week--but let the debate
> continue,
> perhaps by next Monday we'll have a sensible motion crafted
> that will be
>
> ready for email ballot to close before the end of the year holidays?
>
> Regards,
>
> --Paul
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK>
> To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
>
>
> > At 01:26 03/12/2007, Sherman, Matthew J. \(US SSA\) wrote:
> >
> >>Tony,
> >>
> >>First I am fully supportive of Roger's plan and think we should go
> >>forward.
> >
> > In which case I am sure you would have no problem
> supporting a motion
> that
> > approves that as a plan going forward.
> >
> >>I recognize that many of us are now getting involved and
> >>trying to assist Buzz.
> >
> > The point I was trying to make is that until we are *all*
> (and I mean
> all,
> > not just a few or even the majority) actively involved in
> fixing this
> > problem, then
> >
> > (a) the likelihood of it getting fixed is small,
> >
> > and
> >
> > (b) we have no business passing motions of the form "Until they fix
> the
> > problem then they can't do X".
> >
> >>But it bothers me that we have worked on this
> >>for 3 years (if I've understood correctly) without finding
> a solution,
> >>and that we now have at least 4 more years (5 since we just
> gave away
> >>2011 as well as 2009 as being potentially to 'too hard' to take
> non-NA).
> >>Where does it end?
> >
> > ...but that is precisely my point. "We", for the most part, haven't
> been
> > working on it *at all* other than offering occasional
> encouragement to
>
> > others and passing the odd motion. Big deal. Its time we stopped
> passing
> > vacuous motions and got with the program.
> >
> >
> >>I think we need to place a strong focus on solving the problem. The
> >>fact that there is a 'safe solution' I believe is preventing us from
> >>focusing on solving the problem. It's time to fly without a net.
> >
> > I'm sorry...that doesn't make much more sense to me than your
> "learning
> > from experience" comment earlier in the discussion.
> >
> >
> >>By the way, we already ripped up one decision we made that
> would have
> >>forced us to go to Rome (non-NA). We can always rip up this motion
> too
> >>if it becomes apparent we can't find a venue.
> >
> > In which case, why bother to make the motion in the first place?
> >
> >>But I would like that for
> >>at least one year Buzz truly focuses on finding a non-NA venue with
> out
> >>the distraction of NA venues to consider.
> >
> > I repeat, I would like for *us all* to truly focus on the problem.
> Buzz is
> > a volunteer, just like the rest of us; this isn't his only job. And
> there
> > is a limit to what one person can do in a situation where we are
> > attempting to do something that is new for the organisation and may
> not
> > necessarily conform to the way business is routinely done in NA. He
> > doesn't need us making more rods for his back; what he needs is
> practical
> > help and support. Lets start doing that.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >>Mat
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> >>Engineering Fellow
> >>BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
> >>Office: +1 973.633.6344
> >>Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> >>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> >>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
> >>Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 2:05 PM
> >>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> >>
> >>Carl -
> >>
> >>While I support the desired end result of this motion (that we get
> >>nNA meetings ASAP), I feel that it is ill-advised.
> >>
> >>Firstly, making motions isn't going to make nNA meetings happen. The
> >>only thing that will ensure that it will happen is all of us (not
> >>just Buzz, Bob H or Face-To-Face) doing what is in our power to
> >>actively pursue possible venues. Right now, I am already doing just
> >>that with my old University (which will of course only be a viable
> >>choice as a July meeting, so preesumably wouldn't meet the
> >>requirements of your motion anyway); I don't know yet
> whether it is a
> >>viable venue, but there's only one way to find out. If that one
> >>fails, then I will look elsewhere for a campus venue in the UK. We
> >>all have contacts of one form or another (via clients, employers, WG
> >>members... whatever) that we could potentially tap into. For my
> >>money, that is a more fruitful approach.
> >>
> >>Secondly, Putting this kind of straight-jacket on what we can and
> >>cannot book has the potential fallout (as Buzz has already pointed
> >>out) that we end up with no palatable venues at all for the empty
> >>slots 2011 on. I don't think that is what we want to happen.
> >>
> >>So rather than making what seems to me to be a rather empty gesture
> >>by passing a "Make it so" motion, I would prefer to see us pass a
> >>motion accepting Roger's proposed process (or some near variant
> >>thereof) for choosing potential nNA venues in the future,
> and that we
> >>follow up by actually getting our hands dirty with finding some
> >>candidates to choose between.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Tony
> >>
> >>At 13:30 02/12/2007, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
> >> >I would accept the following change to my original motion:
> >> >
> >> >Moved: That 802 sign no contracts for NA plenary venues
> beyond 2011
> >>until we
> >> >have viable, affordable nNA venues in place for March
> 2011 and 2012.
> >> >
> >> >That will give Buzz the flexibility to book July and Nov 2011 (for
> >>which he
> >> >apparently has deals in the works, if I understand Mat's comment
> >>correctly),
> >> >but require us to focus remaining energy in the near term
> to finding
> >>nNA
> >> >venues for March 2011 and a 2012 plenary, which could be
> any of the
> >>three.
> >> >
> >> >Mat, do I have it right and do you second the ammended
> motion above?
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >Carl
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >> > > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> >> > > Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> >> > > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:07 AM
> >> > > To: Rigsbee, Everett O; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> >> > >
> >> > > First,
> >> > >
> >> > > I am willing to second Carl's motion (but with a friendly
> >>amendment).
> >> > >
> >> > > I can accept booking 2011 as a North American venue. There
> >> > > is only the March meeting left and I think Buzz has already
> >> > > worked the deals.
> >> > > However I believe we should be focusing all our energy on
> >> > > Non-NA venues after that.
> >> > >
> >> > > So my recommended motion if Carl will accept it is:
> >> > >
> >> > > Moved: That 802 sign no further contracts for NA plenary
> >> > > venues beyond
> >> > > 2011 until we have *viable, affordable* nNA venues in place for
> >>2012.
> >> > >
> >> > > Until we start getting working non-NA venues, I think we all
> >> > > need to chip in and assist Buzz. But we need to light a fire
> >> > > underneath ourselves. 6 years to figure out how to do this
> >> > > is simply too long.
> >> > >
> >> > > Mat
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> >> > > Engineering Fellow
> >> > > BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
> >> > > Office: +1 973.633.6344
> >> > > Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> >> > > email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> >> > > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Rigsbee,
> >> > > Everett O
> >> > > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 1:27 PM
> >> > > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> >> > >
> >> > > Colleagues, This motion is a really "BAD" idea for several
> >>reasons
> >> > > but I will explain a couple of them in some detail:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. We have NO definitions for what is "viable" and what is
> >> > > "affordable"
> >> > > beyond what we got in our last survey, which several people
> >> > > seem to think was flawed in one or more ways. So I would
> >> > > suggest that if we want to put any qualifiers on nNA venue
> >> > > selections we need to do some homework to decide what are the
> >> > > appropriate qualifiers to ensure that they produce the best
> >> > > Good for all of IEEE-802. I tend to agree with Roger Marks
> >> > > that the best nNA venues will be those that have good support
> >> > > from local hosts but finding appropriate hosts for nNA venues
> >> > > will take some time as we have seen from Roger's schedule.
> >> > > And when have we reached our goal ??? When we have selected
> >> > > a site for 2011, or when we actually have all contracts in
> >> > > place, which might take up to a year after selection? Do we
> >> > > also have to have a completed deal for March 2012 as well ???
> >> > > That might take another year to complete. How do we know,
> >> > > "Are we done yet ???"
> >> > >
> >> > > 2. Meanwhile we have open slots in our schedule that we need
> >> > > to book 3 to 4 years out to get access to any of the venues
> >> > > we actually like, such as San Francisco, Maui, New Orleans,
> >> > > and San Antonio. If we are not actively booking those slots
> >> > > while we have good choices available, I can absolutely
> >> > > guarantee that you will NOT like the choices we have at only
> >> > > 2 years out (are we ready for HR-DFW or Hilton WDW again
> >> > > ???). Right now we do have some good choices that we have
> >> > > spent many hours working to bring you, but if we pass on
> >> > > those for an indefinite period, you will not get another shot
> >> > > at them. If we want to consider some constraints on future
> >> > > venues let's focus on those that are in 2013 and beyond but I
> >> > > would suggest that we do that by just not supporting venues
> >> > > further out until we have some nNA venues on the schedule.
> >> > > But I sincerely believe each venue needs to be judged on its
> >> > > own merits and that we need to continuously seek guidance
> >> > > from our membership as to what is really most important to
> >> > > the success of the organization as a whole.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanx, Buzz
> >> > > Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> >> > > Boeing IT
> >> > > PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> >> > > Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> >> > > Ph: (425) 373-8960 Fx: (425) 865-7960
> >> > > Cell: (425) 417-1022
> >> > > everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> >> > >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@wk3c.com]
> >> > > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 8:17 AM
> >> > > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >> > > Subject: [802SEC] Motion re: nNA venues for 2011 and 2012
> >> > > Importance: High
> >> > >
> >> > > Having been asked to wait until the previous ballot closed,
> >> > > the following would now appear to be timely.
> >> > >
> >> > > Moved: That 802 sign no further contracts for NA plenary
> >> > > venues until we have *viable, affordable* nNA venues in place
> >> > > for 2011 and 2012.
> >> > >
> >> > > Background: It appears that we require some "feet to the fire"
> >> > > motivation to
> >> > > find, select, and contract for nNA plenary venues. This
> >> > > motion, if approved, would require that we meet our 3 year
> >> > > old policy objective to hold at least one nNA plenary
> >> > > annually, starting at the earliest possible time and assure
> >> > > that ALL possible plenary session dates that are not already
> >> > > contracted for be considered for nNA until we have contracted
> >> > > viable, affordable nNA venues for 2011 and 2012.
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards from the BoG meeting in Florida,
> >> > >
> >> > > Carl
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > ----------
> >> > > 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.
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.