RE: [802SEC] Get802 program has been restored to former terms and conditions through May 15
Colleagues, I'd like to second Roger's thoughts on this and point out that
we have the same problem with the 802-2001 Overview and Architecture
Since the new edition was approved, the old edition has been removed and the
only option is to purchase the new edition.
Clearly it would be better if the old edition were still available during
the 6-7 month window together with a link to purchase the new edition if you
The current policy would seem to penalize groups like 802.3 that prefer to
keep everything together in one specification because each time an update is
made the entire set of standards become unavailable for another 6 months.
This would seem to favor doing all work as add-on supplements leading to
highly fragmented standards, which I don't think we want to encourage.
I also agree with Roger that it appears we've paid for two years support and
only gotten one.
If we're going to continue this program, there are several matters which
will need to be adjusted to make it acceptable on an ongoing basis.
I don't think the current numbers which we've seen show enough detail to
make any meaningful predictions about viability.
Bill Quackenbush is right we really need to see monthly run rates to see if
there are meaningful trends or not.
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
Ph: (425) 865-2443
Fx: (425) 865-6721
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Get802 program has been restored to former terms and
conditions through May 15
(1) I don't see a need to pro-rate our contribution. The breakage of
the agreement affected the operation of the program for 0 days.
(2) I don't see how the existence of 802.3-2002, which is not in
GetIEEE802, would stimulate the removal of 802.3-2000 from
GetIEEE802. Obviously, our agreement with IEEE-SA doesn't specific
every detail, but this is one that I find to be well outside my
(3) Since Mr. Thompson expresses concern for the program beyond May
15, I think we need to ask very carefully what we really get for our
money. If the program simply terminates, then the whole argument we
had at the last meeting is moot. In other words, the question of
whether the delay is 6 month or 12 months is irrelevant unless the
program operates at least six more months. If the program closes on
May 15, then we will be getting nothing at all for our money. In that
case, the only reason to give it away it because we have a commitment
to do so. Do we? I can't tell. Regarding that issue:
(4) I'd like to see the specific escrow motion we passed on March 15.
I don't think the minutes are out yet.
(5) I'd like a Treasurer's analysis of the following:
When we started the program a year ago, the basic idea was for us to
contribute $75/person/meeting on a continuing basis. However, we also
kicked in some older escrowed funds amounting to, I believe, two
meetings. Since the program was planned as a three-year pilot, I
understood that the escrowed funds were to supplement the program
over the three-year startup phase.
If I have my math right, the current proposed motion is to forward
the fee for the fourth meeting since we agreed to start the program.
Adding in the two escrowed meetings, I calculate that, if the motion
passes, we will be in for six meetings worth of donations. Now, if
the program ends on May 15, we will have gotten for our money exactly
one year of distribution. This means that we will have effectively
paid double: $75/person/meeting for six meetings, in return for one
year of distribution. Bob and/or Bill: do I have this right?
At 11:09 AM -0700 02/04/09, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>I will vote APPROVE on such a motion because I believe that it
>restores the terms of the deal that we all agreed upon. However, I
>do have some considerations.
>1) Mr. Frasier has expressed surprise that 802.3 will no longer be
>available. That is true and doesn't surprise me as there is a new
>REVISION that has just been published. Those voting should be aware
>of this though.
>2) My approve vote is with some reservations.
>I am tempted to pro-rate our contribution by the following formula
> ((365/3) - (Days that agreement was broken)
>At this point I think our prospects for having a program after May
>15 are shaky.
>At 07:24 AM 4/9/02 -0700, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
>>Since a motion was passed by the SEC to escrow the 802 funds for the
>>Get802 program, I move the following:
>> Now that the IEEE-SA has reinstated the Get802 program
>>according to the
>>original agreement with IEEE 802, 802 funds for the Get802 program that
>>were escrowed at the March SEC meetings are hereby released from escrow
>>for payment to the IEEE-SA according to the terms of the Get 802
>>Word smithing is welcomed.
>>Paul Nikolich wrote:
>> > Bob,
>> > Yes it does IMPLY that a check should be cut, but the SEC will have to
>> > formally vote on it before that action is taken. Bob, by your
>>> assume you and Bill would be willing to Move/Second such a motion? If
>>> will one of you please prepare a motion for SEC email ballot?
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:email@example.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:59 PM
>>> To: Bill Quackenbush (E-mail)
>>> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > Subject: RE: [802SEC] Get802 program has been restored to former terms
>> > and conditions through May 15
>> > Paul:
>> > Does this resolution imply that a check should be cut to IEEE-SA?
>>> I'll support your request for an SEC email ballot to release the funds
>>> you feel it is nessary, or equally support a decision to proceed on the
>>> restoration of the program.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:Paul.email@example.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:07 AM
>>> To: 'IEEE802'
>>> Cc: 'Walker, Jerry'; firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> Subject: [802SEC] Get802 program has been restored to former terms and
>> > conditions through May 15
>> > All,
>> > I just received a note from Jerry Walker/Karen Rupp that the
>> > has been restored by the BoG with unanimous approval (see below).
>>> Please note that IEEE 802 and IEEE-SA have much work ahead to
>>>figure out how
>>> to keep the program operating under the current terms and
>>> Thompson, Howard Frazier and myself are actively engaged with Jerry
>>> to identify alternatives to ensure adequate funds are in place to
>>> the program.
>>> --Paul Nikolich
>>> Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Project
>>> email: email@example.com
>>> cell: 857.205.0050
>>> mail: 18 Bishops Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940
>>> Karen Rupp
>>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org 04/01/2002
>>> cc: Jerome Walker/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE@IEEE
>>> Subject: Ballot Approved
>>> As an FYI, the motion below was approved with100% unanimous approval/
>>> return as of today, 1 April.
>>> Thank you for your quick response,
>>> Move to delay implementing the above motion until May 15, which is the
>>> one-year anniversary date for the program. Additionally, the newly
>>> 802 Task Force shall provide by 30 April 2002, a mutually agreed upon
>>> proposal for proceeding with the program, to the BOG for their
>>> Karen A. Rupp
>>> Associate Managing Director,
>>> Business Administration
>>> IEEE Standards Activities
>>> 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331
>>> Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
>>> Phone: 1 732 562 3822
>>> Fax: 1 732 562 1571
>>> email: email@example.com
>>> check out our website at: http://standards.ieee.org