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

RE: Interim Meeting Agreement


Your comment that we might want to get someone else to perform Buzz's role
raises a number of concerns.  While I don't object to someone else getting
involved, without significant involvement by Buzz and me, there will be a
huge learning curve for making this meeting compliant with IEEE
requirements.  As the person primarily responsible for getting us through an
audit, I cannot decouple from a meeting that is backed by the 802 Treasury.

To not jepordize our ability to cleanly pass our CY2001 audit, I think the
following list must be followed.  I agree with you that all of us probably
assumed Face-to-Face would be doing the meeting, and if so, most of the
requirements below would naturally be followed. There are though some unique
problems also addressed in this list (an doubtless others I haven't yet
thought of).

1.  The meeting planning is not covered under the existing Face-to-Face
contract.  I expect that Buzz and I at a minimum should review the contract
with one of us signing it.  Face-to-Face could simply reference the existing
contract with appropriate adjustments to the financial terms.   

2.  To the best of my knowledge, Buzz is the only person that has been
signing hotel contracts.  Unless the Exec explicitly approves another 802
officer, Buzz should sign the contract for this meeting.  Obviously, the
contract has to accomodate IEEE meeting guidelines.

3.  If credit applications need to be completed, I should complete them.

4.  Other services requiring a contract should be executed by Jim, Buzz or
I.  I strongly recommend the use of existing contractors to reduce the work
load from this (Kinko's, Xerox, etc.)

5.  All contracts need to be placed on file with similar 802 plenary meeting
records, they will have to be included in the 2001 audit.

6.  In the absence of other guidelines for the handling of funds, the same
rules need to apply as those used for plenary meetings.  I would ask the
meeting registration report be on the same daily close-out spreadsheet (with
necessary adjustments for registratin fee).  Credit card payments should be
processed though our existing merchant account.  I will need to come to an
agreement with my surogate on the handling of checks and cash, but they will
be processed through the 802 checking account as will all payments.

7.  All invoiced items must be approved for payment using similar processes
to our plenary meetings.  I/surrogate will need to be able to work directly
with and expect support from the meeting planner to resolve any invoice

8.  I will classify all expenses related to the meeting as I do for a
plenary meeting.  The surplus or deficit from the meeting will include
credit card discounts, shipping and other charges beyond the hotel costs.

--Bob Grow

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Carlo []
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 9:02 PM
To: Rigsbee, Everett O
Cc: Dawn Slykhouse; IEEE802
Subject: Interim Meeting Agreement

Buzz, I understand your concern. However, I believe the SEC has approved
this motion, by a vote of 7-3 (I think it is a good decision to try this)
and the groups that have signed up are committed. I would assume that Dawn
is committed to do this (although we never have discussed the agreement with
Dawn to do this and what will be the terms). I would think that this might
be an opportunity for someone in the wireless groups to take on your role
for this interim meeting, with possibly greater help from Dawn. We will also
need to have a person act as oversight for financial report on this meeting
and report to the Bob Grow and the SEC.

Jim Carlo( Cellular:1-214-693-1776 Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigsbee, Everett O []
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 4:44 PM
To: 802 J Carlo
Cc: 802 Exec
Subject: FW: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement

Jim,  Given the firm opposition by Geoff Thompson and Bob Grow to the notion
of 802-Hosted interims that do not include ALL working groups, I think we
should consider withdrawing the offer of the 802-Hosted May 2001 interim.
Neither Dawn nor I relish the thought of a prolonged philosophical battle
this issue, and frankly none of us need the extra work, if it's not viewed
beneficial to the 802 community.  Until we see some resolution on this
I would prefer to concentrate my time in areas that will be productive.

Thanx,  Buzz
Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA  98124-2207
ph: (425) 865-2443, fx: (425) 865-6721
> ----------
> From: 	Geoff Thompson[]
> Sent: 	Thursday, December 07, 2000 4:42 PM
> To: 	Rigsbee, Everett O
> Cc: 	Grow, Bob;; 802 @F2F Dawn S; 802 @F2F Darcel
> Subject: 	RE: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
> Buzz
> What I believe Bob is saying and what I am saying is that to use 802 funds
for the benefit
> of a few working groups for activities outside the Plenary is something I
will not support.
> It's that simple.
> Geoff
> At 04:38 PM 12/5/00 -0800, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
> OK Bob,  So what you and Geoff are saying is that unless every WG in 802
> chooses to participate in an 802-Hosted interim, it's not possible to hold
> If this is your firm and unalterable position on the matter, then we
> ought to bag this notion entirely because it's not possible to plan
anything on
> that basis.  There will always be some WG that has a legitimate reason for
> wanting to meet separately.  My personal view is along the same lines as
> Bob Love's.  That all groups are invited to participate, to help choose
> week, and if they instead choose to seek a separately hosted meeting, that
> should not prevent the other WG's from participating in an 802-hosted
> Every group would have a fair and equal chance and they get to choose
> their preference.  They can opt in or opt out, but I don't think they
> have the right to spoil it for all the groups that do want to participate.
> That seems really unfair to me !!!   :-)
> As soon as we have a WG that doesn't want/need to hold interim meetings
> we're finished.  So why even bother ???
> Thanx,  Buzz
> Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> Boeing SSG
> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> Seattle, WA  98124-2207
> ph: (425) 865-2443, fx: (425) 865-6721
> email:
> > From:         Grow, Bob[]
> > Sent:         Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:17 AM
> > To:   'Geoff Thompson'; Rigsbee, Everett O
> > Cc:   stds-802-sec; 802 @F2F Dawn S; 802 @F2F Darcel Moro
> > Subject:      RE: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
> > Geoff's conclusion that I expressed an equivalent objection is correct.
> > fairness issue is fundamental to my concern on  how this has evolved.
> > of the good faith and credit of the 802 treasury is something that has
> > denied for interim meetings in the past and in the current plan is
inequitably applied.
> > --Bob
> > From: Geoff Thompson []
> > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:03 PM
> > To: Rigsbee, Everett O
> > Cc: stds-802-sec; 802 @F2F Dawn S; 802 @F2F Darcel Moro
> > Subject: RE: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
> > Buzz-
> > I do understand that the PLAN is to net zero.
> > However, according to the motion, the 802 treasury is standing behind
> > Orlando meeting to the tune of
> >          1) Guaranteeing that it will happen.
> >          2) Covering any shortfall
> >          3) ??
> > It is not providing the same for other meetings.
> > That is not equitable and is to the disadvantage of the roughly half of
> > 802 membership who depend on me to represent them.>
> > I believe that this is in line with the point that Bob Grow made
> > Geoff
> > At 11:36 AM 12/4/00 -0800, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
> >>Geoff,  I think you are misunderstanding the proposal.  All of the
> >>for the Orlando meeting are being paid by the meeting fees collected
> >>the attendees (just as we do at a plenary meeting).  The plan is to
tailor the
> >>expenses at the meeting to come out with net balance of $0.  Thus there
> >>will be no impact on IEEE 802 treasury.  The only role being played by
> >>IEEE 802 is to serve as the hosting body  to make the meeting
> >>and ensure that the Hotel agreement conforms to our stand policies.  The
> >>meeting fees collected from the attendees will cover all of the actual
> >>It is possible to track and adjust expenses during the meeting so that
> >>exactly match the funds collected.  It is NOT the case that the 802
> >>is subsidizing one meeting and not the other.
> >>Thanx,  Buzz
> >>Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> >>Boeing SSG
> >>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> >>Seattle, WA  98124-2207
> >>ph: (425) 865-2443, fx: (425) 865-6721
> >>email:
> >>> From:         Geoff Thompson[]
> >>> Sent:         Saturday, December 02, 2000 3:03 PM
> >>> To:   jcarlo
> >>> Cc:   IEEE802>
> >>> Subject:      Re: FW: +++ BALLOT: Interim Meeting Agreement
> >>> In the current form I vote DISAPPROVE
> >>> I cannot support such a discriminatory allocation of funds, i.e. to
> >>> group consisting of
> >>> 802.11
> >>> 802.15
> >>> 802.16
> >>> and excluding
> >>> 802.1
> >>> 802.3
> >>> 802.17
> >>> If a more equitable arrangement is offered I would be more inclined to
support it.
> >>> Geoff
> >>> At 04:39 PM 12/1/00 -0600, Jim Carlo wrote:
> >>>>Howard Frazier -
> >>>>Bob Grow -
> >>>>Paul Nikolich - Approve
> >>>>Buzz Rigsbee - Approve
> >>>>Vic Hayes - Approve with Comment
> >>>>Tony Jeffree - Approve
> >>>>Geoff Thompson -
> >>>>Bob Love - Do Not Approve
> >>>>Stuart Kerry - Approve
> >>>>Bob Heile - Approve
> >>>>Roger Marks - Approve
> >>>>Jim Carlo - Chair
> >>>>Stuart Kerry, who is here with me at the moment in the Netherlands has
> >>>>approved this motion. After the November 2000 motion the original
> >>>>hosts for dot11, dot15 and dot16 (ParkerVision and Intersil) have not
> >>>>forward with hotel and meeting facilities because they were convinced
> >>>>802 was taking care of the organization and liability issues. Vic
> >>>>I vote conditionally approve based on 802.17 being added to the list
> >>>>working groups to meet in Orlando.  Otherwise I must vote NO.  This
> >>>>failed to capture the spirit of the email discussion that directly
> >>>>it.  The previous e-mail suggests that 802.17 prefers Orlando to
> >>>>directily contradicting Note 3.  Will all those that have already
voted in
> >>>>support of this motion please send an e-mail to the reflector stating
> >>>>you support my requested change? Thank you. Bob Love
> >>>>SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/29Nov2000
> >>>>Issue Date: 29Nov2000 Closing Date: 3Dec2000
> >>>>Moved By: Buzz Rigsbee
> >>>>Move: Approve that IEEE 802 financially back-up the commitment for the
> >>>>following Working Groups to hold their interim meeting in Orlando on
> >>>>14-18May. The plan is this meeting will run on a break even financial
> >>>>802.11
> >>>>802.15
> >>>>802.16
> >>>>Notes:
> >>>>1) 802.11, 802.15, 802.16 are committed to attend this meeting.
> >>>>2) Bob Grow an I will need to have a financial report of this interim
> >>>>meeting, to be prepared and presented at the SEC in July. Will work
out the
> >>>>details in March.
> >>>>3) This note is not part of the motion, and outside the scope of 802
> >>>>However, 802.3, 802.1, 802.17 currently plan to hold a separate
> >>>>hosted by Intel in Sacramento during the week of May 28 - June 1. Note
> >>>>this is Memorial Day weekend. Note also that this motion does not have
> >>>>commitment on this meetings, just a possible plan, that might and
> >>>>will change.
> >>>>Jim Carlo( Cellular:1-214-693-1776
> >> Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274>
> >>>>TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
> >>>>Vice Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
> >>>>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee