Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009
Thanks for that Pat - I also have been getting thoroughly fed up with
being given a hard time over the London meeting, and you make almost
all of the points that I would have made in response to Buzz and Carl's emails.
Just a few additional points:
- One of the primary reasons for 802.1's decision to meet somewhere
other than London was that London in January sucks (and that was
pointed out very early in the negotiations for that meeting). Yes, it
was an expensive venue, but that wasn't what I heard as the major
objection when we discussed it in 802.1.
- As Pat has pointed out, 802.1 has met in NNA venues pretty
regularly over the last several years. Some (but not all) of them
have been more expensive than the average Plenary. One (Geneva) was
actually very reasonable, because (a) we didn't pay any registration
fee and (b) we weren't tied to a single, expensive, hotel.
- From what I hear, room block issues aside, it may have been
fortunate that 802.1 and 802.3 didn't opt for meeting in London
because there may not have been enough meeting rooms to accommodate us.
I haven't concluded my email poll of 802.1 yet, but responses so far
are not looking good for Rome (2 votes for Rome, 12 votes for
Vancouver). The primary reasons being cited in the responses I have
had are (a) the Rome proposal is way too expensive, even in
comparison with recent 802.1 NNA venues like Stockholm, and (b)
Vancouver is a great place to have a meeting.
At 01:59 26/09/2007, Pat Thaler wrote:
>Buzz and Carl,
>I want to set the record straight. Time after time past history about
>the London meeting gets misrepresented and I'm getting pretty tired of
>Both 802.1 and 802.3 indicated from the beginning of the London plans
>that they didn't want to go to that interim. There was never an
>"overwhelming" desire of all groups to go there. There was a unanimous
>vote of the EC to approve the London interim after contract negotiation
>issues had gotten hairy and then were ironed out, but my intent in
>voting for that motion was to allow the London meeting for the groups
>that said they wanted to go there - I believe that was true of some
>other voters. Before, during and after that vote, it was clear that not
>all working groups were going to meet there - there wasn't any sudden
>change or "boycott." Given that both groups had been clear from the
>beginning that the London interim was only acceptable if they were
>allowed to opt out, the last minute attempt to force them there was
>unjustified and did not create good will. If that had been a requirement
>of London, I would never have voted to approve the meeting.
>London had the problem of a very expensive hotel in an area where there
>are plenty of more reasonably priced rooms so even for groups that met
>there there was not as good a room night tally as would usually occur.
>Rome has a similar potential - if I recall correctly, these rates aren't
>as high as London but there are certainly other places to stay in Rome
>that are more budget priced. 802.1 just met in Stockholm with similar
>room rates and that seems to have gone okay though there wasn't much in
>the way of cheaper rooms available.
>In any case, I asked a question about room night pick-up earlier. My
>understanding from what Buzz said is that Rome could be set up so that
>we aren't as dependent on room nights as London was.
>To correct another error below: Steve isn't responsible for finding
>802.1 venues, he is an 802.3 officer though of course he has worked with
>802.1 on the occasions where we had a joint interim location. 802.1 has
>had many recent non-NA interims. Bejing in addtion to York, Geneva and
>I don't expect any Working Groups to opt out of a plenary. I also don't
>expect to ever again vote for an 802 hosted interim except in a case
>like the Vancouver interim some years ago where it was set up to avoid a
>penalty because a plenary had insufficient room night pick-up (proof
>that even an NA meeting in one of our tried-and-true favorite venues can
>have that problem).
>Carl, I also felt your earlier comment about the rest of the 2009 and
>2010 meetings being booked non-NA was uncalled for. All the venue
>decisions for those dates were discussed at EC meetings.
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
>Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:14 PM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009
>Comments in response "in-line" below for context.
> > -----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
> > To: wk3c@WK3C.COM; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > 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
>had specified or forego an interim at an alternate location, as you're
>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"
>you put it) an 802 plenary ...
>I believe that we need to find a way to do this - and enforce it - so
>accurate projections/budgeting can be done and we don't end up "in a
>This will require the will of a majority of the EC ... And I believe
>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
>IEEE Contract Procurement" ... Can you share with me (privately is fine,
>you prefer, in my role as a member of the BoG) who is giving you such
>Again, I observe that *many* other organizations routinely meet in
>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,
>my comments were taken in an offensive way by you, that was not my
>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
>reaction from .11, .15., .18, .19, .20, .21, and .22, along with Tony
>(.16 was somewhat pro-Rome, but given the "vote as many times as you
>approach, it seems that the .16 position is based on a different
>than "Rome or Vancouver?" I don't recall if Bob Grow has responded for
>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
>is required to get the best deal possible in Rome and move forward
>based on earlier pre-registration, earlier steps up in meeting fees, and
>starting point attendance-wise that's conservative with some incentives
>negotiated into the contract if we exceed commitments, rather than
>if we set the bar too high and fall way short). There's also the
>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
>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
>risks of outrageous penalties.
>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.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.