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

Re: [802SEC] Providing clarity on the November plenary

I concur with James' suggestion that July 23rd is too soon to decide on the schedule for November. While we have learned a great deal, to analyze the data before the experiment is completed compromises the results.  802.3, 802.18 and 802.19 have yet to complete the scheduled meetings. The plenary will not be completed until Friday when the EC meeting ends. Putting the conclusion before the data analysis is not sound engineering.

For those who may want to evaluate the July experiment based on the actual experience, the extra 11 days time is valuable.


Benjamin Rolfe (BCA)

On 7/19/2020 5:31 PM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:

My view, which has been consistent, is that we should wait for feedback from the WGs as our purpose is to enable them to operate as efficiently as possible.

I have not heard anyone state that we should wait until a certain time. I don't know anyone who has stated that we need to wait until August or later.

We should have the feedback by the August 4th meeting, perhaps sooner. That will enable us to make a decision in plenty of time for future planning.

The difference between a decision at the July 23rd meeting and the August 4th meeting is only 11 days.

If there is a _specific_ item that needs to be scheduled right now, I would be interested to hear what it is.

If attempt to decide without the necessary information, then it is more likey that we would need to change the schedule, which works counter to the argument that we need, right now, to nail down the times for the plenary.

James Gilb

On 7/17/20 3:31 PM, George Zimmerman wrote:
All -
I meant to get this out earlier, but the week has gotten away from me.

I would like to speak in support of providing clarity on the schedule and nature of the November IEEE 802 meeting.  I have heard discussion of waiting until August, or even perhaps later to do this, and would advise against it.  This is for several reasons:

First, our participants are asking.  It is not just idle curiousity.  They are trying to make plans for their own schedules and their own participation.  I can personally tell you that what are minor changes in the schedule for 802 meetings in July has made a mess of plans I made back in May.  I have adjusted, but knowing about the schedule earlier would have avoided a bunch of work and juggling activities.  Others plan meetings and reviews well in advance, and need the benefit of clarity in the 802 schedule in order to maximize their participation.

Second, the leaders of our more active groups need to advance plan and synchronize multiple levels of effort.  New activity (study group) initiation, PAR review, Task Force reviews, and Working group meetings all interlock with the plenary schedule.  Things work better when planned.  We all appreciate a well-run meeting, and, if you're seeing what I'm seeing, these virtual meetings require more, not less work.   We are generally quite good at making these things work seamlessly, but it is because a number of activities are aligned well in advance - usually around the exit of the previous plenary cycle - which is now.

Finally, most of the input will be in by Friday.  All of our working groups will have finished meeting.  If there is critical input or data needed, let us identify it.  Otherwise, we are just delaying a decision for a 'what if' case and incurring the penalty of continued uncertainty which doesn't serve our participants well and makes our leaders' jobs harder.

Thanks for listening - it has been a long week.

George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications<>

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

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

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: