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

RE: suggested changes to 802 tutorial procedures

Roger & Geoff,  OK, you're both wrong.  The requests are sent to Dawn with copies to Jim Carlo and myself, who together perform the gate-keeper function.  If either Jim or I have any hint of commercialism or perhaps a single company point-of-view without a balancing point-of-view from other interested parties, we reject the proposal.  If it's a question of is there broad enough interest to warrant a tutorial, we would put that to the SEC for feedback.  The current policy was put together based on the notion that current WG chairs have more than enough to deal with during the last few weeks before the plenary, and that it's generally easy to tell what's a reasonable tutorial and what's not.  To my knowledge, we have yet to have had an inappropriate tutorial.  I would suggest that until we begin to experience this problem that we not burden the already tedious process with further bureaucratic requirements.  
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: 	Roger B. Marks[]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, February 29, 2000 4:23 PM
> To:
> Subject: 	Re: suggested changes to 802 tutorial procedures
> Geoff:
> >Roger-
> >My opinion.
> >I really don't like any of this. It changes the gate keeper from the
> >members of the Exec to the Chair of 802. The Exec is certainly a small
> >enough group that we ought to be able to do filtering and assignment
> >without an elaborate set of written rules.
> Au contraire. The current gatekeeper of tutorials is Dawn Williams. 
> It's in black and white:
> >All official tutorial requests must sent to Dawn Williams at
> > for final approval and confirmation
> I generally have no idea what tutorials are coming until Dawn hands 
> me the schedule.
> >The form should NOT be on the web. The form, if we must have it, is for the
> >use of WG chairs rather than the use of J. Random Clueless who wishes to
> >advertise in front of 802.
> Mr. Clueless will see that the form needs to be submitted through an 
> SEC member.
> Roger
> >Geoff
> >At 10:58 PM 2/28/00 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
> >>I've expressed to Jim my concern about the 802 tutorial procedures.
> >>While the Chair's Guidelines present a good description of an
> >>appropriate tutorial, there are no real procedures to ensure that
> >>tutorials are not overly commercial or to inform other working groups
> >>regarding potential overlap of interests. There has also been poor
> >>advance notification of the tutorials and their schedules.
> >>Jim asked me to make some suggestions. I suggest the following:
> >>web. Few people know about this form, and it is hard to track down.
> >>(2) Include on the form a reference to and link to the "802 Chair's
> >>Guidelines on IEEE 802 Tutorials"
> >><> so that proposers
> >>get help understanding the rules.
> >>(3) Add the following question (taken from the Chair's Guidelines) to
> >>the tutorial request form:
> >>Purpose of Tutorial (choose one and explain):
> >>(a) Explore possible new directions for 802 efforts
> >>(b) Summarize ongoing major work of Study Group or WG or TAG.
> >>(c) Describe basic 802 or other standards process.
> >>(4) Change the approval process, which currently leaves the SEC
> >>members in the dark until Dawn issues an agenda. I suggest changing
> >>the relevant section of the Chair's Guidelines from:
> > >>Mechanics of Tutorials:
> >>>- Hosted by SEC member or Study Group Chair.
> >>>- Announced to SEC reflector before meeting.
> > >>- Scheduled through Classic Consulting/Buzz Rigsbee
> > >>- Conflicts to be resolved by Executive Secretary and SEC chair> 
> > >>based on most importance to 802.
> >>to:
> >>>Mechanics of Tutorials:
> >>>- Hosted by SEC member or Study Group Chair.
> >>>- Tutorial Request Form posted to SEC reflector for comment.
> >>>- No less than 7 days after posting, SEC Chair may affirm that
> >>>proposed tutorial is appropriate and then schedule it.
> >>>- Conflicts will be resolved by the SEC chair, but priority will
> >>>generally be by order of request.
> >>I also suggest that the "APPROVAL AND CONFIRMATION" section of the
> > >Tutorial Request Form be changed from:
> > >>All official tutorial requests must sent to Dawn Williams at
> > >> for final approval and confirmation with copies to
> > >>Buzz Rigsbee and to Jim Carlo
> >>> .  A confirmation of your request indicating time slot
> >>>assigned will be sent within 10 days of your submission.
> >>to:
> >>>Tutorial requests must be submitted by an SEC member or Study Group
> >>>Chair to the SEC reflector. After not less than seven days for SEC
> >>>reveiw, the SEC Chair may approve and schedule the meeting, with
> >>>notification to the SEC reflector.
> >>(5) I suggest deleting the following section of the Chair's Guidelines:
> >>>All official tutorial request forms must be submitted at least 45
> >>>days prior to the start of the next IEEE 802 LMSC Plenary Meeting.
> >>>Please refer to the future meetings list on the IEEE 802 Web Site
> > >>at:
> >>No one pays attention to it anyway, and the first-come, first-serve
> >>rule should stimulate earlier requests.
> >>Roger
> >| Geoffrey O. Thompson
> >| Chair IEEE 802.3
> >| Nortel Networks, Inc.  M/S SC5-02
> >| 4401 Great America Parkway
> >| P. O. Box 58185
> >| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185  USA
> >| Phone: +1 408 495 1339
> >| Fax:   +1 408 495 5615
> >| E-Mail:
> >| Please see the IEEE 802.3 web page at
> >