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

Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009


In answer to your question of "If we are going to lose >25% of our
regular attendees by trying to do Rome can we honestly call it a full
plenary session?", I reply "Yes". I suspect that those that choose not
to come would be those who are the least involved.

Do we have the "license to just ignore a significant minority with
lesser means"? Yes, if by doing so we achieve an important goal such as
increasing our worldwide scope. And, are we not currently just ignoring
a significant minority of nonNA participant with lesser means?

As to 802.1's willingness to attend nonNA sessions, I find it hard to
believe that they could reject Rome after recent interims in York,
Geneva, and Stockholm.


On 9/25/2007 3:39 PM, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
> Hi Carl,  
> To date I have no response from either 802.1 (Tony Jeffree, who is busy
> taking a poll of his membership) and Bob Grow, who has not yet responded
> for 802.3's membership.  
> If you will recall these were exactly the groups that chose to boycott
> the London session because of high costs, so they are probably the
> groups that are most likely to resist on the Rome session and that we
> need to hear from the most before we commit to a full plenary.  
> We are all aware that the Wireless WGs, which commonly meet together,
> have been much more willing to afford some more costly nNA venues for
> interims.  By comparison, Steve Carlson has had a serious struggle
> finding acceptable nNA venues for 802.3 & 802.1 because of the costs
> involved.  So I believe we need to hear inputs from all of our WGs on
> this matter before we make any commitments.  If we are going to lose
>> 25% of our regular attendees by trying to do Rome can we honestly call
> it a full plenary session ???  Just because a majority of our members
> may be able to justify the cost does not give us license to just ignore
> a significant minority with lesser means.  
> As the US dollar continues to drop and other major currencies advance
> against it, the economic penalty for trying to do nNA venues will surely
> increase and make what began as an expensive venue all that more costly
> thereby scaring even more attendees away.  These are serious concerns
> that we need to consider carefully before we get locked in.  Your
> suggestion of starting small and looking for bonuses if we exceed a
> threshold sounds great, but it does not compute in the international
> marketplace.  They expect you to block exactly what you will need and
> take on the full penalties if you fail to produce.  If you start small
> you run a very serious risk that by the time you discover that you need
> more rooms and meeting space you cannot get them, and you wind up locked
> into a meeting that absolutely will not work.  Are we ready for
> Standing-Room-Only meetings yet ???  I don't think so....
> I think Roger Marks was exactly right when he pointed out that the only
> smart way to go was to have the help of local hosting Companies or
> Organizations (or both), and that he is correct that there are several
> benefits to this approach.  That is the approach that has worked so well
> for the IETF in the past.  My concern is that they are now saying it is
> getting harder and harder to find such hosts.  
> So let's wait until we've heard from all of our attendees and try to
> choose a venue that will provide the most benefits for IEEE-802 as a
> whole.  Blind adherence to an ill-considered policy, no matter how nobly
> inspired, is not a rational approach.  We need to think this one through
> carefully.  
> Thanx,  Buzz
> Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> Boeing IT
> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> Seattle, WA  98124-2207
> Ph: (425) 373-8960    Fx: (425) 865-7960
> Cell: (425) 417-1022
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl R. Stevenson [] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:14 PM
> To: Rigsbee, Everett O; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009
> Buzz,
> Comments in response "in-line" below for context.
> Carl 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of 
>> Rigsbee, Everett O
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:40 PM
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009
>> Carl,  
>> I have just completed a very lengthy and intensive negotiation process
>> with the London hotels that were looking to assess a very large
> penalty
>> on us for failing to meet required pick-up for our January Session
>> because after "Overwhelming Support" for the London meeting at the SEC
>> and our signing contracts for a full plenary type session, two of our
>> larger WGs decided to boycott that meeting and we were left holding
> the
>> bag.  We were very lucky that time that I was able to extricate us
> from
>> that mess with a substantially reduced penalty payment ($25K).  We may
>> not be nearly as lucky next time.  With the possibility of penalties
>> that could literally bankrupt our treasury looming on the horizon I do
>> not wish to rush into some nNA deal unless I have some assurance from
>> each of the WGs that we will not have a repeat of what happened in
>> London.  That is my job; it is what I am not getting paid to do, and I
>> will do it as I see fit.  We DO need to be careful here to not put
>> ourselves in jeopardy and I am trying my best to do that.  It does not
>> help to have you accusing me of trying to sabotage the nNA venue.  I
>> just want to be really sure that we do have solid support for paying
> the
>> 2x costs that are required and that all our WGs will participate this
>> time.  If I were to do anything less, I would expect a vote 
>> from the SEC to remove me from my job for dereliction of duty.
> While I didn't have to clean up the mess from London as you did, I
> sympathize and appreciate your efforts in that regard.
> That was, however, an interim, and while I tried to float a motion that
> would have forced the "boycotting" groups to either meet in London as
> the EC
> had specified or forego an interim at an alternate location, as you're
> aware
> that didn't fly (due to a ruling from Paul if I recall correctly ...)
> Rome will be a plenary and I don't see how any WG/TAG could "boycott"
> (as
> you put it) an 802 plenary ...
> I believe that we need to find a way to do this - and enforce it - so
> that
> accurate projections/budgeting can be done and we don't end up "in a
> pickle."
> This will require the will of a majority of the EC ... And I believe
> that
> that will exists. 
>> While you may think there is overwhelming support from IEEE-SA for nNA
>> venues, I have been receiving strong cautionary messages from IEEE
>> Contract Procurement that it is a minefield out there and very easy to
>> get your organization into a serious bind with nNA venues.  So I have
>> some extra incentive to be especially prudent in pursuing these deals.
>> I would hope that you would appreciate that.
> I appreciate prudence and was not aware of "strong cautionary messages
> from
> IEEE Contract Procurement" ... Can you share with me (privately is fine,
> if
> you prefer, in my role as a member of the BoG) who is giving you such
> cautionary messages?  
> Again, I observe that *many* other organizations routinely meet in
> non-NA
> venues as a matter of policy and their normal way of doing business -
> apparently without any disastrous consequences.
>> So can we please cooperate in trying to be reasonably responsible in
>> making this decision and refrain from making inflammatory accusations
>> ???  I believe we are all trying to do what is right for the good of
>> IEEE-802.  Let's try to work together with that goal in mind, please.
> By all means we need to cooperate and make responsible decisions.  And,
> if
> my comments were taken in an offensive way by you, that was not my
> intention
> so please accept my sincere apology for any offense it caused you.
> It's just that it seems to me that you've already gotten a solid
> pro-Rome
> reaction from .11, .15., .18, .19, .20, .21, and .22, along with Tony
> for .1
> (.16 was somewhat pro-Rome, but given the "vote as many times as you
> wish"
> approach, it seems that the .16 position is based on a different
> question
> than "Rome or Vancouver?"  I don't recall if Bob Grow has responded for
> .3
> or not. And John responded that he preferred Rome, but had no interim at
> which to poll his members.  
> To me, that, combined with our policy goal indicates that we should do
> what
> is required to get the best deal possible in Rome and move forward
> (perhaps
> based on earlier pre-registration, earlier steps up in meeting fees, and
> a
> starting point attendance-wise that's conservative with some incentives
> negotiated into the contract if we exceed commitments, rather than
> penalties
> if we set the bar too high and fall way short).  There's also the
> concept
> that someone floated about a 2 tier registration fee ... With a "meeting
> space and F&B surcharge" for anyone who doesn't book in our room block
> at
> the meeting hotel (as long as space is available, at least).
> It seems to me that we need to look at creative ways to make it happen
> (recognizing that it's inherently going to cost more), while minimizing
> the
> risks of outrageous penalties.
> Regards,
> Carl
> ----------
> 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.