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

Re: [802SEC] Rome decison

G'day Andrew -

I suspect that we are mostly in violent agreement here.

I agree that if we end up going to Rome, that the EC should provide 
the membership with a coherent rationale. However, I have to say that 
I believe we would find that difficult to achieve. Right now I am 
having great difficulty seeing any virtues in Rome other than the 
fact that it is nNA - I personally don't believe that is enough of a 
justification, and on a personal level, painting it as a rational and 
justifiable choice might tax my sense of integrity just a little too far.

I don't think it is just the room costs - the location is, to put it 
politely, just a tad less than ideal: the hotel cannot accommodate 
more than about half of the potential attendees; alternative hotels 
and the downtown areas of Rome are a pain to reach; the "hinterland" 
is great if you want to buy a Toyota or you are heavily into 
newly-constructed industrial areas, but desperately poor if you want 
a meal outside the hotel; the nearest train station is over a mile 
away and not recommended after dark. Apart from that, it is just great...

I would very much agree with your comments regarding vacation venues. 
I remember with great amusement the letter that 802 provided for 
attendees to help them justify to their management the fact that we 
were holding meetings in Hawaii - I really don't want us to have to 
do that again.

I suspect that one hop from SFO may constrain the scope just a little 
too much, but I see where you are going with this. As someone that 
generally finds that 2 hops is the absolute minimum practicable 
itinerary from where I live to almost anywhere useful on the rest of 
the planet, I would probably put 2 hops from SFO as the baseline, 
with a preference for 1.


At 20:51 22/11/2007, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
>G'day Tony
>My personal view on the topic of nNA meetings is that 802 and the 802
>WGs should aim to have 2/3 of their meetings in nNA locations (like
>IETF, WFA, etc), but that the Rome proposal is very poor because of the
>room costs.
>However, the point of my e-mail was actually an objection to the
>assertions, and the accompanying implied threats, that the WG Chairs
>have to reflect the view of their TG.
>I agree that we cannot validly consider the survey to be equivalent to a
>"direction". However, I was just pointing out that the issue was not as
>clear cut as some might have thought.
>This is obviously a controversial topic. I would suggest that if Rome is
>ultimately selected then the EC provide their rationale to the 802
>Whatever is decided, the EC needs to develop a plan to improve the
>perception of the IEEE as an "international" SDO. This might involve
>regular meetings around the world or it might involve something else,
>but something needs to be done.
>BTW My other views related to location are:
>* Locations that are primarily holiday destinations should be avoided
>because they gives the impression that standards are a "holiday club",
>ie Hawaii, Cancun, Fiji, Santorini, Mauritius, Cairns etc should never
>be chosen
>* Locations should be easily accessible. One measure of accessibility
>might be that they can be reached in one plane hop from San Francisco
>(which I would guess is the "mode" of our attendance)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Jeffree []
>Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2007 7:42 PM
>To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
>G'day Andrew -
>While in general agreeing with your comments about the inherent conflict
>that may exist in a WG Chair's responsibilities, I would suggest that
>this particular situation is not representative of the norm. We (the EC)
>agreed to conduct a poll, we reviewed the questions that poll would ask,
>and we conducted the poll. I believe that there was a reasonable
>expectation on the part of those responding to the poll that this
>exercise would be more than just collecting one more data point to add
>to the pile. And if the vote had been really close
>- maybe a few percentage points either way - then sure, the EC should
>have weighed the result along with other factors, and come to a
>decision. However, with such clear-cut direction from its membership, I
>believe the poll results carry far more weight than other
>I would also question whether the poll results directly represent which
>WGs would/would not have passed a directed position motion. It is quite
>possible that members that voted one way in the poll would then vote
>another way on a directed position - maybe on the basis that if the
>Chair asked for clear direction, individuals feel that the guidance to
>the Chair should reflect the majority view of the WG regardless of their
>personal preference; maybe on the basis that further information became
>available between the two votes. The only way to find out for sure is to
>run the motion, not to speculate on the basis of some other vote.
>At 02:29 22/11/2007, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
> >G'day Dave,
> >
> >On the issue of Rome vs Vancouver I have mixed feelings.
> >
> >* On one hand, I would like to see more non North American meetings to
> >help demonstrate to other organisations, including many/most National
> >Bodies within ISO/IEC JTC1, that the IEEE 802 WG's are attempting to be
> >more internationally inclusive than they are currently perceived to be.
> >
> >* On the other hand, I recognise that the proposed location in Rome has
> >many negative factors, such as cost and the remoteness of the site from
> >the centre of Rome.
> >
> >However, that is not the topic of this e-mail. Rather, I feel compelled
> >to point out a misrepresentation of generally accepted governance
> >principles and the responsibilities of the 802 LMSC EC.
> >
> >Your e-mail strongly suggests that WG Chairs must vote according to the
> >will of their WG, as determined by the survey in this case.
> >
> >In fact, under the P&P the WG Chairs have two responsibilities:
> >
> >* "act in the best interest of the LMSC as a whole"
> >
> >* "represent their Working Group on the Executive Committee"
> >
> >The P&P notes that "these responsibilities are in conflict with each
> >other".
> >
> >In the normal case, the WG Chairs have the authority to make their own
> >judgements in resolving any conflict. On this issue, I suspect the WG
> >chairs took into account a whole range of factors in determining the
> >"best interest of the LMSC as a whole", including the survey and the
> >unattractiveness of the Rome location, but weighted the need to be
> >perceived to be "international" more highly.
> >
> >There is a way under the P&P for a WG to remove the WG Chair's
> >to make a judgement in "best interest of the LMSC as a whole". This
> >requires the WG to approve a "directed position" with a 75% majority.
> >However, interestingly, if one considers the survey to be a vote on a
> >directed position, only the 802.1 and 802.20 WG Chairs would have been
> >"directed" to vote for Vancouver over Rome.
> >
> >The membership of the WGs do not have to agree with their WG Chair's
> >decision, but they do have to respect the WG Chair's right to make
> >difficult decisions in the "best interest of the LMSC as a whole" when
> >not "directed", particularly as it was the WG who gave the Chair the
> >authority to make such difficult judgements by electing him/her as the
> >WG Chair.
> >
> >If you do not think a WG Chair displays good judgement then support an
> >alternate candidate at the next election or stand yourself. However,
> >please do not make threatening comments related to fiduciary
> >responsibility and insurance that have no supporting factual basis.
> >
> >Andrew
> >
> >BTW I don't know how Stuart Kerry voted on this particular issue, but I
> >am sure he did so in a thoughtful and well considered manner that took
> >account of many conflicting factors. I would hope he does the same in
> >the motion to rescind the decsion to choose Rome that is likely to
> >in the EC
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of David Bagby
> >Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2007 11:59 AM
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
> >
> >Folks,
> >I find I rather agree with the sentiments Tony expresses below.
> >
> >The EC asked, the membership answered, now the EC actions should
> >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.
> >
> >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
> >"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
> >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
> >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:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----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
> >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,
> >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
> >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
> >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
> >
> > >and F&B)???
> > >
> > >This major disconnect is why I believe that the "survey" was flawed
> > >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.
> >
> >----------
> >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.