Re: stds-802-mobility: Inputs on IEEE 802.20 March Plenary Agenda
I have been travelling and thus unable to put my two cents' worth in prior.
For what it is worth, I do not support the suggested change of election
time. As a group, it seems to be tough slogging to get through all of the
documents during the day. Based on the previous election and the amount of
time that it took, I fear that our day would be entirely unproductive if the
elections were held during the day; so I think that the evening election
plan is a good one.
Thank you
Lynne Dorward
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Goldburg" <marcg@arraycomm.com>
To: "Robert D. Love" <rdlove@nc.rr.com>; <Jerry1upton@aol.com>
Cc: <stds-802-mobility@ieee.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: stds-802-mobility: Inputs on IEEE 802.20 March Plenary Agenda
>
>
> Bob, Jerry,
>
> I'd like to express my support for Bob's suggestion that the elections at
> the upcoming meeting be held on Monday afternoon rather than Monday
> evening. This will make it possible for 802.20's voting members to
> variously attend the Monday evening tutorials, participate in ad hoc
> meetings, e.g., to further the requirements document, and attend to any
> obligations that they might have beyond 802.20.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marc
>
>
> ------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------
> From: "Robert D. Love" <rdlove@nc.rr.com>
> Sender: owner-stds-802-mobility@majordomo.ieee.org
> To: <stds-802-mobility@ieee.org>, <Jerry1upton@aol.com>
> Cc: "802 SEC" <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> Subject: Re: stds-802-mobility: Inputs on IEEE 802.20 March Plenary Agenda
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:15:30 -0500
>
>
> Jerry, thank you for your prompt response to my posting and for your
> willingness to begin the 802.20 opening session early if there is
sufficient
> support.
>
> With regard to the elections being held at 7:00pm on Monday, I must say
that
> I missed that detail in your 802.20 Policies and Procedures. I would like
> to strongly urge that we hold the elections during more usual Working
Group
> hours for three reasons.
>
> 1) Elections are a part of the regular business of the Working Group, and
> therefore should not be scheduled for evening sessions when there is a
> higher likelihood of conflicts of many sorts including evening business
> meetings and business dinners.
>
> 2) The elections specifically conflict with 802 sponsored tutorials which
> are supposed to be open to all 802 participants.
>
> 3) Since the SEC raised the question of the last 802.20 election including
a
> number of people whose first interest was not 802.20, I think that we
should
> stay squeaky clean by holding elections at a time when other working
groups
> have official meetings going on, so that most of our participants will
have
> 802.20 as their primary interest. Please note that I was not a
participant
> at that time and am making no claims either way about that election.
> However, I do think we need to show that we are attempting to make sure
such
> an accusation cannot be reasonably raised about the coming election.
>
> I am copying the SEC on this email to allow them to correct me in my
> assumptions if I am off base in my assumptions.
>
> Thank you for considering these points.
>
> 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
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Jerry1upton@aol.com>
> To: <stds-802-mobility@ieee.org>
> Cc: <rdlove@ieee.org>; <wu@docomolabs-usa.com>; <pittampalli@lucent.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:33 PM
> 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
> >
>
> ------- end -------
>
>