Re: stds-802-mobility:Time of Elections and Inputs on IEEE 802.20 March Plenary Agenda
Mark,
I too concur. The elections should be held Monday afternoon as proposed
by Bob.
I recall specifically pointing out during the January Interim (and
the meeting minutes 802.20-04-02 confirm) that the officer elections
are an important objective for the March plenary:
"March Plenary Key Objectives:
1. Re-affirm Jan. Interim decisions
2. Reach Consensus on Requirements Document
- vote the sections and resolve written negative comments
3. Evaluation Criteria
4. Channel Models
5. Traffic Models
6. Work Plan Schedule- - New Schedule before end of Plenary
7. Officers Election"
At no time do I recall (and again the minutes corroborate) that there
was any suggestion that the election would be held outside of usual
WG business hours. Had there been such a suggestion I would have
objected at the time. And, as Reza pointed out, I do not see
how the document "Working Group Policies and Procedures (Ver.1)" is
applicable as it has not been approved by the WG. I would have
expected the approval process to highlight for the working group
an issue like this one.
Thanks
Mike
On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 07:34:02PM -0500, Klerer Mark wrote:
>
> Jerry
>
> I concur with Bob Love's proposed agenda and further request that it be made
> clear that the elections will be held Monday afternoon as proposed by Bob.
> Monday and Tuesday evenings of Plenary Sessions are reserved for Tutorials
> and official WG business should not be scheduled to conflict with peoples
> ability to attend these tutorials.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark Klerer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-mobility@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-mobility@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> Jerry1upton@aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:34 PM
> To: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
> Cc: rdlove@ieee.org; wu@docomolabs-usa.com; pittampalli@lucent.com
> Subject: stds-802-mobility: Inputs on IEEE 802.20 March Plenary Agenda
>
>
> All,
> A number of inputs have been sent regarding the high level agenda posted for
> our March Plenary. Additionally I have received time requests for planned
> contributions, not yet submitted.
>
> Obviously a detailed agenda requires knowledge of the contributions and
> inputs on the priorities from the group for March. Regarding the
> contributions, I do ask individuals for their inputs and at least cover
> pages with a requested time allocation as soon as possible. I will send a
> separate email regarding contributions shortly.
>
> Based on inputs and discussions in Vancouver, my view on the group's
> priorities is the number one priority is resolution of comments and
> consensus regarding the Requirements document. Whether we will need a day
> and a half for this as Bob Love has proposed, I do not know. We should
> however plan at least a day subject to the number of contributions. My view
> is our number two priority is consensus on a Work Plan and project
> schedule. Therefore we should plan more than an hour plus for that item. My
> suggestion is at least two hours plus time needed for contributions. We can
> clearly use the time on Tuesday evening to continue our session for other
> topics if our priorities are clear. Please provide your inputs on priorities
> as this will help on making time allocation decisions.
>
> Regarding proposals for changing the time of the Officer Elections, the
> rationale for holding elections in evening on Monday at the plenary is
> clearly to create more time for the groups key priorities and work progress.
> The time for the election and the procedure for the election is stated in
> the Working Group Policies and Procedures (Ver.1)and was posted before
> Vancouver. The election time of 7PM on Monday at the plenary will not
> change.
>
> Participation in the Joint Opening with the other wireless groups has been
> discussed in earlier sessions. Originally this was started as an optional
> attendance slot with no credit for participation. During and after the
> November Plenary, it was suggested we make this a participation credit time
> slot and eliminate some duplication of topics. We started the new approach
> in Vancouver. Several members have told me they want to participate in the
> joint opening as this is a good way for them to understand what the other
> groups are doing.
>
> Therefore, I would not support a change for the joint opening unless we
> receive more the a small number of people supporting the change and receive
> very few objections. Therefore, I do request further inputs from the group
> on this topic.
>
> Given all the inputs currently and the anticipated further inputs, I will
> create another proposed agenda with further details, as known, early next
> week. Then, we will plan for a third version on March 9th after we have
> final contribution inputs.
>
> Thank you to all who have provide inputs and proposals. I look forward to
> further inputs on priorities.
> Regards,
> Jerry Upton
> Chair, IEEE 802.20
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 2/18/2004 9:39:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> rdlove@nc.rr.com writes:
>
> > All,
> >
> > On February 13th I posted an email to the reflector expressing my
> disappointment with the high level agenda for our March meeting now on the
> web at http://www.ieee802.org/20/meet_agenda.htm. I also suggested that we
> could save time by beginning our meeting at 1:00pm Monday rather than
> participating in the joint wireless opening plenary from 1:30 - 3:30pm.
> Since that posting, a few people have expressed support for having 802.20
> start our meeting earlier, and nobody has posted any notes opposing that
> idea. As a consequence, I have taken the next step to develop a proposed
> revised agenda that gives us the possibility of making significantly more
> progress than the one now posted on the web site. That proposed agenda is
> attached to this email.
> >
> > One of the requirements for being able to meet earlier is having the
> meeting room available. I contacted Face-To-Face Events and was told that
> the meeting room that has been assigned to us is available from 1:00pm on
> Monday. We need only ask for it.
> >
> > Please review the attached agenda and express your approval or concerns to
> the reflector. Please note that the proposed agenda has both the topics to
> be discussed and the time allocation for each topic. Since we don't yet
> know what contributions will be submitted, the agenda may have to change.
> The proposed schedule has almost two hours of flexible time on Tuesday, and
> again on Wednesday to accommodate such changes.
> >
> > Note that with this proposed revised agenda there are two other possible
> time periods for us to be holding Ad Hoc meetings, those times are Monday
> morning 8:00 - 11:00am, and Monday evening. We should look into the
> possibility of effectively utilizing those time slots as well.
> >
> > Whatever agenda we ultimately pass, I would like to see both the subjects
> to be covered and the time allocations on the schedule. It is only by
> carefully managing our time that we
> > can make the necessary progress.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Robert D. Love
> > President, LAN Connect Consultants
> > 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> > Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> > email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187