Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 4:46 PM
> To: wk3c@WK3C.COM
> Cc: '802 EC'
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
>
> Carl,
>
> There is no reason why we would have to reserve a large room block for
> the Rome venue. The meeting facility is not tied to rooms. So there
> would not be any room penalties.
John,
My understanding from what I understood Buzz to say is that F&B and meeting
space pricing are contingent on a certain (large) size room block and that
those prices would go up with a smaller room block, if they'd even rent us
the meeting space at all with a very small room block (if I am wrong, I'm
sure Buzz will clarify/correct me.)
> And since people would be free to book
> a room at any hotel they wish, it would be far less costly to attend
> than what was claimed in the survey. If other hotels are not within an
> easy walking distance, we could hire a coach to shuttle people between
> various hotels and the meeting location. I assume this would cost far
> less than the difference in room rates. There are many ways that we
> could make Rome work.
Apparently the hotel is in the middle of an industrial area, with no other
hotels, restaurants, etc. anywhere close.
What I had originally understood as "15 minutes to central Rome on a high
speed train" is apparently more like 45 minutes and the nearest train
station is nearly 2 miles away (and the area is reportedly infested with
roaming packs of wild dogs ...).
From all I can see based on the information that's been presented and what
I've researched myself since our closing EC meeting, the venue *sucks* to
put it bluntly (again I can't help but feel that its "attractiveness" and
"convenience" were mis-represented to us all along, whether intentionally or
not).
> But, if the EC gives up on Rome without trying creative ways
> to make it work,
Frankly, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Rome is a lost cause -
unworkable and extremely dangerous financially and logistically.
> then I hate to see us settle for Vancouver. I don't believe that
> if Vancouver is still available at this date that other locations that
> could fit us, including in Hawaii, would not also be available.
While I *like* Vancouver and we've had some very good meetings there, I
*also* hate to see us "settle for Vancouver" *in this case*, since it is not
in line with the policy objective we laid out 3 years ago. However, since
it's apparent that that policy has not been executed effectively, and I
doubt that we could find a suitable alternative (before we'd lose the option
on Vancouver, if at all) at this late date), I find myself reluctantly
forced to lean towards Vancouver.
Regards,
Carl
>
> jl
>
> On 11/26/2007 1:27 PM, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > While I agree that Vancouver is not a logical alternative
> to Rome (it
> > doesn't meet our nNA objectives), I must admit that based
> on information
> > that has come to light recently (which I think should have
> been FAR more
> > broadly and prominently brought to the EC's attention MUCH
> sooner, and
> > likely would have resulted in retaining other nNA venues for further
> > consideration, rather than dropping them from
> consideration), I am EXTREMELY
> > concerned that holding fast on Rome will result in a MAJOR financial
> > disaster for 802.
> >
> > 1) Attendance may drop DRAMATICALLY, significantly
> impacting both meeting
> > fees and room committments.
> >
> > 2) Even if 1) does not happen, or the drop is modest, at
> the quoted room
> > rates, I doubt that more than a small fraction of our room
> block will be
> > booked at the quoted rates, resulting in significant
> penalties (which if I
> > recall correctly, could also negatively impact our costs
> for F&B and meeting
> > space).
> >
> > As far as Hawaii goes, I don't think the Waikaloa Village, where the
> > wireless groups have held 2 interims (and plan to return
> for a 3rd) has
> > enough rooms or meeting space to hold an 802 plenary and there is no
> > "neighbor" property within a reasonable distance to support
> a split venue.
> > (Besides, at this date, Hawaiian properties that could hold
> us may well
> > already be booked for March 2009.)
> >
> > As much as I dislike it, I am becoming inclined (but not
> *quite* ready to
> > commit) to supporting Vancouver, because I don't think we
> can afford the
> > risk that the Rome venue poses and I am not optimistic that
> a viable nNA
> > alternative could be found and committed before our option
> on Vancouver
> > expires.
> >
> > Should I do so, it will be with the greatest of reluctance
> and should in NO
> > way be construed as a change of direction from my firm view
> that we need to
> > (and should be able to have) nNA plenaries, as so many
> other large groups
> > routinely do.
> >
> > Carl
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
> >> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:17 PM
> >> To: 802 EC
> >> Subject: [802SEC] It doesn't have to be either or
> >>
> >> If you are inclined to vote against Rome, think before you vote for
> >> Vancouver. Vancouver is not the logical alternative to Rome.
> >> If we can't
> >> get a European or Asian venue this time, then the next best
> >> venue would
> >> at least be non-NA. I know that people are afraid of
> Hawaii being seen
> >> as a vacation trip. But I also know that it is very
> popular among our
> >> participants coming from Asia, and it is definitely non-NA.
> >> Sure, it is
> >> still the US, but does anyone other than Canadians (hi Mike)
> >> really view
> >> Canada as being a non-American venue? Vancouver does little
> >> if anything
> >> to ease the Americancentric appearance, and does nothing
> to alleviate
> >> the travel burden of those from other continents. Rome may
> not be the
> >> best choice, but neither is Vancouver. Until a venue is
> proposed that
> >> addresses at least some of the problems we were trying to
> solve, I ask
> >> you to reject switching to a random venue of convenience.
> >>
> >> John Lemon
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> 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.