FW: [802SEC] Public Relations Point of Contact update
Mark Klerer has volunteered to assume the duties of the Public Relations
Point of Contact for IEEE 802 for the next several plenary sessions.
and I will have a joint call with Karen McCabe next week, after which
will be asking for your help in assembling the PR material for March.
Please plan on giving Mark your support in synthesizing the March 2003
Roger, once again, thank you for your time and effort as the past PR
Thank you Mark for volunteering to be the present PR PoC.
Chairman, IEEE 802
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Nikolich" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "IEEE802" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 6:01 PM
Subject: [802SEC] Public Relations Point of Contact
> Dear SEC,
> Roger Marks has done a great job as the IEEE 802 PR point of contact
> last 3 plenary sessions and he is 'retiring'. We need someone to pick
> the responsibilities that Roger performed as the Public Relations
> Contact and I am looking for a volunteer. Roger has listed the
> performed below.
> Pulling together input from the WG/TAG chairs and putting it together
> coherent whole via the 802 News Bulletin is a tough job, but it does
> people a clear, accurate view of the many projects going on inside
> I'll need a volunteer within the next week--any takers?
> Once again Roger, thanks for your time and effort.
> --Paul Nikolich
> Chairman, IEEE 802
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger B. Marks" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:49 AM
> Subject: PR Point of Contact duties
> > Paul,
> > As we have discussed, I would like to retire from the 802 "Public
> > Relations Point of Contact" duties I assumed a year ago.
> > I hope you'll find someone else willing to take this role. The key
> > activity is to develop an 802 News Bulletin and have it ready for
> > release a week after each 802 Plenary. I think it's a valuable
> > exercise.
> > To give you an idea of what's required, here is a schedule of
> > activities based on that used at the previous Plenary. The dates are
> > all with respect to the opening of the Plenary:
> > -6 weeks: send out a memo requesting input for the bulletin from the
> > WGs based on what they expect to achieve during the Plenary
> > -2.5 weeks: deadline for initial input
> > -7 days: send draft bulletin, based on assembling initial input and
> > editing for style and consistency, to Michael Bratnick
> > -5 days: Michael sends an edited draft to Karen McCabe for review
> > -3 days: Karen e-mails draft to reviewers, defining the deadline for
> > post-Plenary corrections and updates. Comments to go to Karen and
> > Michael as well as PR Point of Contact
> > +8 days: Corrections and updates due
> > +9 days: Submit revised draft to Michael
> > +10 days: Draft, edited by Michael, submitted for review
> > +11 days: Final bulletin released to press
> > The biggest challenge is that many of the Working Groups ignore the
> > deadlines and/or submit inappropriate materials. It's been hard to
> > get them to follow the format and style of previous bulletins. Also,
> > you need to remind people that, during the drafting phase, they are
> > being asked to draft a future status report based on a projected
> > status, not a report of the status before the Plenary. Other than
> > Chair, there may not be in many people in a Working Group in a
> > position to make this kind of projection without help. For this
> > reason, there is a temptation to simply forget about pre-Plenary
> > drafts. However, I think that they are important because you can
> > solve the basic style and format problems in advance. Also, you can,
> > in principle at least, ensure that each WG has a specific lists of
> > issue to follow up on. You can imagine each WG essentially
> > designating a reporter to fact-check a finite list of news items.
> > That's a lot less demanding than handing a reporter a blank slate.
> > Personally, I also think it's helpful for the WG to come into the
> > meeting with a specific set of outcomes communicated.
> > Roger