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

Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009

The major difference wrt the London meeting was that it was an interim
meeting and WGs were allowed to come or not. With a plenary, do the WGs have
a choice on whether they will attend?


On 9/25/07 5:39 PM, "Rigsbee, Everett O" <>

> Hi Carl,  
> To date I have no response from either 802.1 (Tony Jeffree, who is busy
> taking a poll of his membership) and Bob Grow, who has not yet responded
> for 802.3's membership.
> If you will recall these were exactly the groups that chose to boycott
> the London session because of high costs, so they are probably the
> groups that are most likely to resist on the Rome session and that we
> need to hear from the most before we commit to a full plenary.
> We are all aware that the Wireless WGs, which commonly meet together,
> have been much more willing to afford some more costly nNA venues for
> interims.  By comparison, Steve Carlson has had a serious struggle
> finding acceptable nNA venues for 802.3 & 802.1 because of the costs
> involved.  So I believe we need to hear inputs from all of our WGs on
> this matter before we make any commitments.  If we are going to lose
>> 25% of our regular attendees by trying to do Rome can we honestly call
> it a full plenary session ???  Just because a majority of our members
> may be able to justify the cost does not give us license to just ignore
> a significant minority with lesser means.
> As the US dollar continues to drop and other major currencies advance
> against it, the economic penalty for trying to do nNA venues will surely
> increase and make what began as an expensive venue all that more costly
> thereby scaring even more attendees away.  These are serious concerns
> that we need to consider carefully before we get locked in.  Your
> suggestion of starting small and looking for bonuses if we exceed a
> threshold sounds great, but it does not compute in the international
> marketplace.  They expect you to block exactly what you will need and
> take on the full penalties if you fail to produce.  If you start small
> you run a very serious risk that by the time you discover that you need
> more rooms and meeting space you cannot get them, and you wind up locked
> into a meeting that absolutely will not work.  Are we ready for
> Standing-Room-Only meetings yet ???  I don't think so....
> I think Roger Marks was exactly right when he pointed out that the only
> smart way to go was to have the help of local hosting Companies or
> Organizations (or both), and that he is correct that there are several
> benefits to this approach.  That is the approach that has worked so well
> for the IETF in the past.  My concern is that they are now saying it is
> getting harder and harder to find such hosts.
> So let's wait until we've heard from all of our attendees and try to
> choose a venue that will provide the most benefits for IEEE-802 as a
> whole.  Blind adherence to an ill-considered policy, no matter how nobly
> inspired, is not a rational approach.  We need to think this one through
> carefully.  
> 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl R. Stevenson []
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:14 PM
> To: Rigsbee, Everett O; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009
> Buzz,
> Comments in response "in-line" below for context.
> Carl 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
>> Rigsbee, Everett O
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:40 PM
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009
>> Carl,  
>> I have just completed a very lengthy and intensive negotiation process
>> with the London hotels that were looking to assess a very large
> penalty
>> on us for failing to meet required pick-up for our January Session
>> because after "Overwhelming Support" for the London meeting at the SEC
>> and our signing contracts for a full plenary type session, two of our
>> larger WGs decided to boycott that meeting and we were left holding
> the
>> bag.  We were very lucky that time that I was able to extricate us
> from
>> that mess with a substantially reduced penalty payment ($25K).  We may
>> not be nearly as lucky next time.  With the possibility of penalties
>> that could literally bankrupt our treasury looming on the horizon I do
>> not wish to rush into some nNA deal unless I have some assurance from
>> each of the WGs that we will not have a repeat of what happened in
>> London.  That is my job; it is what I am not getting paid to do, and I
>> will do it as I see fit.  We DO need to be careful here to not put
>> ourselves in jeopardy and I am trying my best to do that.  It does not
>> help to have you accusing me of trying to sabotage the nNA venue.  I
>> just want to be really sure that we do have solid support for paying
> the
>> 2x costs that are required and that all our WGs will participate this
>> time.  If I were to do anything less, I would expect a vote
>> from the SEC to remove me from my job for dereliction of duty.
> While I didn't have to clean up the mess from London as you did, I
> sympathize and appreciate your efforts in that regard.
> That was, however, an interim, and while I tried to float a motion that
> would have forced the "boycotting" groups to either meet in London as
> the EC
> had specified or forego an interim at an alternate location, as you're
> aware
> that didn't fly (due to a ruling from Paul if I recall correctly ...)
> Rome will be a plenary and I don't see how any WG/TAG could "boycott"
> (as
> you put it) an 802 plenary ...
> I believe that we need to find a way to do this - and enforce it - so
> that
> accurate projections/budgeting can be done and we don't end up "in a
> pickle."
> This will require the will of a majority of the EC ... And I believe
> that
> that will exists.
>> While you may think there is overwhelming support from IEEE-SA for nNA
>> venues, I have been receiving strong cautionary messages from IEEE
>> Contract Procurement that it is a minefield out there and very easy to
>> get your organization into a serious bind with nNA venues.  So I have
>> some extra incentive to be especially prudent in pursuing these deals.
>> I would hope that you would appreciate that.
> I appreciate prudence and was not aware of "strong cautionary messages
> from
> IEEE Contract Procurement" ... Can you share with me (privately is fine,
> if
> you prefer, in my role as a member of the BoG) who is giving you such
> cautionary messages?
> Again, I observe that *many* other organizations routinely meet in
> non-NA
> venues as a matter of policy and their normal way of doing business -
> apparently without any disastrous consequences.
>> So can we please cooperate in trying to be reasonably responsible in
>> making this decision and refrain from making inflammatory accusations
>> ???  I believe we are all trying to do what is right for the good of
>> IEEE-802.  Let's try to work together with that goal in mind, please.
> By all means we need to cooperate and make responsible decisions.  And,
> if
> my comments were taken in an offensive way by you, that was not my
> intention
> so please accept my sincere apology for any offense it caused you.
> It's just that it seems to me that you've already gotten a solid
> pro-Rome
> reaction from .11, .15., .18, .19, .20, .21, and .22, along with Tony
> for .1
> (.16 was somewhat pro-Rome, but given the "vote as many times as you
> wish"
> approach, it seems that the .16 position is based on a different
> question
> than "Rome or Vancouver?"  I don't recall if Bob Grow has responded for
> .3
> or not. And John responded that he preferred Rome, but had no interim at
> which to poll his members.
> To me, that, combined with our policy goal indicates that we should do
> what
> is required to get the best deal possible in Rome and move forward
> (perhaps
> based on earlier pre-registration, earlier steps up in meeting fees, and
> a
> starting point attendance-wise that's conservative with some incentives
> negotiated into the contract if we exceed commitments, rather than
> penalties
> if we set the bar too high and fall way short).  There's also the
> concept
> that someone floated about a 2 tier registration fee ... With a "meeting
> space and F&B surcharge" for anyone who doesn't book in our room block
> at
> the meeting hotel (as long as space is available, at least).
> It seems to me that we need to look at creative ways to make it happen
> (recognizing that it's inherently going to cost more), while minimizing
> the
> risks of outrageous penalties.
> Regards,
> Carl
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This
> list is maintained by Listserv.

John R. Barr (
Director, Standards Realization - <>
Chairman of the Board, Bluetooth SIG - <>
(847) 576-8706 (office) +1-847-962-5407 (mobile) (847) 576-6758 (FAX)

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.