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

Re: [802SEC] Your Input needed by the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc

Yes Agree with Geoff, this is one of the points I have made (repeatedly): Building relationships tis done more efficiently when we can meet face to face both inside and outside of scheduled meeting times.  While it is possible to build collaborative relationships with people that you have never actually met is possible, it takes longer.  The informal "ad hoc" communication is very hard to emulate remotely.  In standards development that is the coffee break, dinner and after dinner time. When we used to have a "workplace" to gather, this was the "wandering around" time that was so critical to building and maintaining effective teams.

I want to also address what I think is a potentially misleading assumption with respect to the attendance at remote meetings.  Intuitively, sure, when it is easier and cheaper more people may show up.  But we don't have any data on WHY people are showing up and so we can reach no conclusion, as some seem to have, that the numbers are solely due to "easy and cheap".   Another factor that explains greater attendance, at least in some WGs, is new projects attracting more interested folks.  This is the situation the task group I currently chair:  we have seen increased attendance because more people are getting interested.   These kinds of new folks also can include those who have something specific to contribute (specific goals for the standard projects), as well as those that just want to stay up on what's going on.   The first sub-set can is comprised again of a mix: some folks with a history in 802 and standards development, and some folks for whom this is all new.   Many new participants have been attracted because this project follows behind (a sequel if you will) to IEEE Std 802.15.4z which has been widely adopted and so generated a swell of interest in the next installment.   We have been able to leverage greatly the relationships built before isolation, through individual outreach and effort by those who know the importance of bringing "new blood" into the active fold.  It definitely is more difficult and time consuming than the coffee/meal/drink approach.  My intuitive sense is that we are not engaging all the new folks as well as we would in real meetings.

I stand firm that our "face to face" cadence was appropriate with 3 plenaries and each working group dealing with interims as fit. For me as a wireless standards developer with a focus on markets that are moving quickly, the 2020-21 cadence is definitely not working as well.  My experience, as noted in my "view" slides, is different from many of you as I've done a number of < 3 year projects because timeliness has been the key to successful adoption. In other WGs and markets the 5 year average is fine. The impact of 2020-21 may be more severe to my time scale than for others. Your mileage may vary.   Even after we have built the relationships, the fact remains that those face-to-face meetings are a forcing function that sets obvious milestones, as well as allocation of time and a more dedicated attention.   However....

While I am not willing to admit total defeat in resumption of life amongst the many just yet, reality is here we are, and we need to adapt to the near-term reality that isolation will continue for various reasons.  We need to learn how to do it better, especially engaging newcomers and building new collaborative relationships in the era of isolation.  In the longer term, we can apply what we learn to effective mixed-mode meetings where we can have the benefits of both our "old school" ways and our new remote techniques.

I remain convinced however that a goal any distance short of 3 live in person plenaries a year is not OK. For my TGs the goal should include 3 in person interims as well.

My individual opinion based on my experience and expertise 😉.


From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <> on behalf of George Zimmerman <george@CMEPHYCONSULTING.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Your Input needed by the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc

I think Geoff makes an excellent point, one which I was discussing with a friend the other day when he was describing business meetings going back and forth between in-person and online.  Familiarity is an enabler for effective on-line meetings.  It builds empathy and understanding, which are vital to the consensus process. (or any agreement process).  With small groups (<10), some personal ‘check-in’ or ‘chit-chat’ time often helps to build familiarity online, but that doesn’t scale well.

For the most part, to the new participant, online meetings are kind of like cold sales calls.  I don’t think I’ve seen an effective model yet for building that familiarity with an extended sequence of online-only meetings.  So either we’d have to invent one (which I think is a bit of social science outside our primary expertise) or we need to weave personal interaction into the future meeting discussion.  For me, I think this means at least a couple face-to-face meetings per year, with participation/membership/voting rights heavily weighted to encourage attendance.




From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <> On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Your Input needed by the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc




The one topic I don't see on the list here that is significantly different between the short term problem and long term meeting remotely is that in addressing the short term problem, we had a situation where we all knew each other.  It is much easier to function in a remote meeting when it is between people who know each other.


When we went remote we had a lot of new folks attending because it was free and didn't require travel or huge blocks of time to do that.  I don't think we got a lot of new contributors or even critics during the process.


If we wish to continue remote or mixed on a long term basis we need to figure out how new blood will be able to worm their way into our process.





On Tuesday, November 30, 2021, 08:23:23 AM PST, Paul Nikolich <> wrote:



Dear EC Members,


Please respond to Andrew's below request, as your observations are important input to the IEEE 802 Future Meeting ad hoc.  If you don't have time to respond, please delegate it to an appropriate WG/TAG member.


Thank you and regards,




------ Original Message ------

From: "Andrew Myles (amyles)" <>

Sent: 11/26/2021 12:30:06 AM

Subject: [802SEC] More on IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc


G’day all


It has been four weeks since the last remote-only meeting of the IEEE 802 Future meeting ad hoc. So far we have heard two perspectives on what has worked well and not so well in remote-only meetings over the last two years from:


There has also been a small amount of e-mail discussion, questioning the efficacy of holding remote-only meetings for various TG and WGs in a short block


Would anyone else like to share their perspectives … before I start driving the group towards conclusions?


The request for perspectives is based on the following questions:

  • What aspects of remote operation have worked during COVID?
    • Highlight real examples
    • Identify why remote operation was successful in these cases
  • What aspects of remote operation have NOT worked during COVID?
    • Highlight real examples
    • Identify why remote operation was NOT successful in these cases
  • What could be done to turn any failures into successes?
    • Describe some real turnaround examples (if any)
    • … or hypothesise about how this could be done


If we get a volunteer, I will suggest another remote-only call this year




Ben Rolfe’s notes from the session he led on 27 Oct 2021


How can we make meetings more efficient?

·       Streamline the meeting preamble: develop a concise and consistent way of presenting

o   Right now various groups do it differently and it can take a significant time

o   Most participants have seen it many times already

o   Could ask people to review the slides before the meeting (maybe on calendar entry)

o   Need SA input on how abbreviated we can get

·       Reduce meeting density during sessions (ie number of meetings running in parallel)

o   More flexible for remote meetings more than in-person or hybrid

o   Less overlap can improve cross-WG participation

o   Not practical for in-person meetings

o   Some overlap unavoidable - a month long virtual session doesn’t work

o   Overlapping some things is more OK than other things

Observations on in person vs remote:

·       Initial impressions are important in building working relationship

·       The importance may vary based on activity

·       Remote makes this more difficult

·       Seen this slowing things down in 2020-21

Observations on the “IETF Experience”

·       Different “normal” than 802

·       But similar impacts noted:

o   Easier to continue progress on existing projects, mature projects

o   New work slowed

Question about remote only (whether temporary or as an alternative long term):

·       Need a process for improved socialization

·       Could a virtual social be useful?

o   Been tried in other forums

o   Results mixed

o   Comment that (technical conference) it didn’t’ work


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

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

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

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

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