stds-802-mobility: Re: Agenda Follow Up-Participation in Joint Wireless Opening
All 802.20,
I am re-sending my previous email,which had two typing errors. My apologies and please review this email.
Thank you,
Jerry Upton
Chair, IEEE 802.20
In a message dated 2/25/2004 12:43:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jerry1upton writes:
> All 802.20,
> In my email of March 18th included below, I requested inputs from members regarding 802.20 participation in the Joint Wireless Groups Opening in March. Though I stated my support for participation, I was open to a change from our past participation, if we had more than a small number of people supporting the change and very few objections.
>
> As everyone could see on the email reflector, we have had a number of people supporting the change and a number of people stating their preference for no change. Given this was not a vote, I will not state exact numbers. However, the preferences were almost half for a change and half for no change.
>
> Therefore we will not change our past practice of participating in the Joint Wireless Group Opening. The High Level Agenda will not change.
>
> I want to thank everyone who took the time to express their views. I also thank the other email subscribers for their patience given the email traffic generated.
>
> I have received a number of inputs on agenda topics and suggested time changes for specific topics. We do need inputs on planned contributions as soon as possible to develop a proposed detail agenda.
>
> Regards,
> Jerry Upton
> Chair, IEEE 802.20
>
> Previous Email dated March 18th:
> Subj: stds-802-mobility: Inputs on IEEE 802.20 March Plenary Agenda
> Date: 2/18/2004 3:33:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From: Jerry1upton@aol.com
> To: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
> Cc: rdlove@ieee.org, wu@docomolabs-usa.com, pittampalli@lucent.com
> Sent from the Internet (Details)
>
> 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