|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Folks, I find I rather agree with the sentiments Tony expresses below. The EC asked, the membership answered, now the EC actions should reflect the membership's stated desire. The survey results were pretty clear. From the posted survey results: Only one group (.17) voted to pick Rome over Vancouver - and that vote as 4,1. .17 represents 5 people out of the total of 552 that participated in answering that survey question. Only one group (.19) tied - where the vote was 1,1 - that's another 2 people out of the 552 total. ALL THE REST OF THE GROUPS VOTED FOR VANCOUVER OVER ROME. As did the overall count of 362, 185 for a 66% vote in favor of Vancouver - or pretty close to a 2:1 ratio. I don't see how the data could be much more clear. Learning from this email thread that one or more EC members argued that the survey was flawed simply sounds to me like an excuse for those EC members to argue for the result which they had already pre-decided they wanted. It may have been "flawed"... (I have no objective way to measure "flawed-ness"). In any case it is what it was. The EC crafted it and ran it. If it is "Flawed" it is so because the EC made it so. Maybe the EC will get "better" at surveys in the future. For now, all the available data clearly says Vancouver 2:1 over Rome. I believe a good argument could be made that the EC members have a fiduciary responsibility to the organization, and the members of the organization have pretty clearly said what they prefer. Before the EC does otherwise, EC members may want to consider that lack of Directors & Officers insurance situation again. That's not a threat, rather an attempt to get people to seriously consider the potential consequences of their actions. I also infer from this situation that there are EC members that had/have little or no intention of representing their membership's desires. My personal opinion is that if you argued against doing what your group voted for, you should be seriously considering resigning. If you don't resign, I hope your group rectifies the situation by remembering this for you in March elections. Note that I was not at the Friday Plenary, so I have no idea who the prior statement may offend/anger - and it doesn't matter. I feel just as strongly about elected officers representing their membership as those that want Rome "as a symbol of nNA, no matter what" apparently feel about the March 2009 venue issue. I also realize that the way "it sounds to me" may not be the way the person or persons making the argument intended it - and that does not change how it appears - at least to this member. The act of asking the membership what it wants to do, and then attempting to find a way to ignore the response is, well, deplorable. People do watch the EC actions. A primary purpose of this email is to remind the EC that others do watch what goes on. I've attached the survey results and cc'd this email to the WG I spend the most time participating in (.11). Seems to me 802 needs more light shone under this particular rock. I'm hoping (but don't in fact know one way or the other) that the .11 chair argued for the position expressed by the .11 WG and the overall 802 membership. Dave ____________ David Bagby email: David.email@example.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:28 AM To: wk3c@WK3C.COM Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decison Carl - I guess where we differ is in how we choose to go forward from here. The EC chose to say "The survey was flawed, so we will ignore its results and go to Rome anyway". I didn't agree with that position, and voted accordingly. Unfortunately, my viewpoint didn't prevail. To me, it was our responsibility to make sure the right questions were asked in the survey. We failed to do that, for whatever reasons, despite ample opportunity to do so. Shame on us all. However, having asked the wrong question, I believe we were stuck with the answer we were given by the 802 membership. To then ignore the survey results seems to me to be arrogance in the extreme. The fact that the EC didn't like the answer the survey gave isn't sufficient justification for going against it IMHO. Just because it fits in with our desire to do NNA meetings doesn't make it the right choice. As it happens, and for the reasons pointed out by Pat, I think that particular Rome venue is a lousy choice anyway, regardless of the price issue, and particularly so when compared with Vancouver as an alternative. Regards, Tony At 13:47 21/11/2007, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: >I think you got my point ... > >If one can book prices in the >=~200/night range now, why in the heck >are we being quoted $425-450 (since we pay separately for meeting space >and F&B)??? > >This major disconnect is why I believe that the "survey" was flawed (at >best) and the results skewed to the point of being worthless. ---------- 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.