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

Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Email Ballot +++ Exec Secretary T&L Funding

Geoff -


I believe the two situations to be closely similar insofar as in both cases,
there was/is a piece of work to be done that was/is believed to be essential
to the continued conduct of our business, and that the prospect of fixing
the problem any other way was/is small. 


In the case of Arnie and his funding, it is not at all clear to me that the
situation was truly imposed upon us (although I will grant you, there was a
lot of pressure for us to accept it); we could have chosen to refuse - I
don't believe that the SASB can have any legitimate basis upon which to
require us to spend our membership's dollars in any particular way of their
choosing - but we did not. However, as you say, the question of precedent vs
bad idea is a discussion that must take place.


Looking beyond the limited horizon of the March meeting, my personal view is
that it is vanishingly unlikely that we will find someone to fill Buzz's
shoes unless we (802) are prepared to fund the position in some way. In the
present financial climate, it is hard enough to find sponsors that will
commit their resources (either human or financial) to our technical work,
let alone to provide the level of commitment that is involved in the
Executive Secretary role as it is currently defined. So, it would seem to me
that we are going to have to re-define the role somehow. Two obvious
alternatives spring to mind (there are probably others):


-          Make the exec sec role part of the overall meeting planning
function that we currently contract out to F2F, and remove it as an EC
function altogether;

-          Split the job into a non-funded oversight role that retains EC
membership (and that involves much more limited time commitment), and an
operational role that is contracted out as part of the overall meeting
planning function.





From: Geoff Thompson [] 
Sent: 12 January 2010 8:09 AM
Cc: IEEE 802 Executive Committee List
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Email Ballot +++ Exec Secretary T&L



Thanks for the support.

I'm not sure that I agree with you regarding the extent to which Arnie
really set the precedent.  Arnie was really a "hired gun" from the outside
that the SASB imposed on us and required us to cover his costs. True that
there was money involved but I seen it as a very different situation.

But whether it actually was different or not and whether we should accept
that incident as a ground breaking precedent or an experiment that was
perhaps a bad idea (or anything in between) is exactly why we should have
the discussion in a face-to-face setting.

Best regards,


On 1/11/10 11:25 PM, Tony Jeffree wrote: 

Geoff -
I believe your re-wording of the motion as described and justified below is
appropriate, and so I am changing my vote to "disapprove" pending such a
However, at least part of the discussion so far has suggested that such
actions would create a precedent, put us on a slippery slope, etc. etc. The
reality, in my opinion, is that that precedent has already been set by the
actions we took some while ago to support the then Chair of 802.20. 
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: 12 January 2010 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Email Ballot +++ Exec Secretary T&L
Some further thoughts of mine on this motion.
I think it is a bad idea for several reasons.
For some of these reasons, I hope that Paul will rule it out of order in 
its current form.
1.  I think paying Buzz for his expenses for past meetings is a bad idea 
and a bad precedent.  Buzz (like the rest of us) should decide to come 
to meetings or not on the basis of whether or not it is affordable to 
him, either through sponsorship or out-of-pocket. I don't think Buzz (or 
anyone) should pay for attending a meeting on the speculation that he 
might get 802 to pay for it afterwards as an unbudgeted expense.
Therefore I believe that paying for Buzz's expenses for November 2009 
should be declared to be out of order or, at a minimum, a separate 
motion to be considered at an in-session meeting (presumably March).
2.  I see no urgency in the decision as to whether we pay for the 
reimbursements under discussion for July and afterward.  Therefore, that 
portion of the motion and the discussion thereof should be declared 
out-of-order for this e-mail ballot and deferred until March.
If those actions were followed, then the only appropriate action for 
consideration at this time would be a one-time motion (hopefully not to 
set a precedent):
    *To provide for reimbursement of reasonable and customary expenses
    (e.g. airfare, hotel, meals, etc) of the Executive Secretary for the
    March 2010 Plenary Meeting.*
I strongly believe that paying for officer expenses sets us up for a 
major change in the way 802 operates and that further operation in this 
mode should not take place without an explicit and considered change to 
our by-laws to allow 802 to pay for certain specified expenses for 
particular officers.  This should not be done without full discussion in 
the Working Groups and with an accompanying financial impact analysis. 
We will be setting a precedent that others will rush to take advantage 
of.  Many of our officers have been self-employed at one time or 
another, myself included.
The fallout of something like this is that effectively 802 could end up 
paying the expenses of all of its officers except for those whose 
employers decide to cover expenses. This would significantly change the 
nature of 802 as well as have a significant upward impact on meeting 
fees. This would also have to be approved or at least allowed by the 
Best regards,
Geoffrey O. Thompson
Chair, 802 Emergency Services EC Study Group
Member Emeritus, 802 Executive Committee
GraCaSI Standards Advisory Services
 <> <>
+1.540.227.0059    (Google Voice)
On 1/11/10 7:06 AM, John Hawkins wrote:

Dear EC members,
I should have brought this up in November, but alas it didn't get
done. Apologies in advance for cluttering your inboxes with another
email ballot.
Paul has delegated the conduct of the IEEE 802 EC 10-day ballot on the
following motion to me.
The EC approves the use of IEEE 802 resources for reimbursement of
reasonable and customary expenses (e.g. airfare, hotel, meals, etc)
for Buzz Rigsbee, the IEEE 802 Executive Secretary, for the following
plenaries, or until he is replaced, whichever is sooner:
     - 2009 November plenary
     - 2010 March, July, November plenaries
Such reimbursement will be not to exceed $1,000 per plenary, averaged
over the period
Moved:  John Hawkins
Seconded: Steve Shellhammer
Start of ballot: Tuesday 12th January, 2010
Close of ballot: Friday 22nd January 2010, 11:59PM EDT
Early close: As required in subclause 'Electronic Balloting'
of the IEEE project 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations
Manual, this is notice that this ballot may close early once
sufficient responses are received to clearly decide a matter.
  - As most of you are aware, Buzz has now formally retired from Boeing
and therefore has lost them as source of support for attending our
meetings. Fortunately for us, Buzz is willing to continue his service
as Executive Secretary for the IEEE 802. Given the complexity of this
function, and the significant time and commitment involved, this is a
positive for us.
  - The motion proposes that we cover his expenses, at least in part.
Mostly these would consist of airfare and local transportation, but
may also involve hotel/meals in certain instances. Note that hotels
often "comp" Buzz's room expenses given his role in negotiating
contracts on our behalf, but there could be an exception here or there
so I'm leaving the motion open to that possibility. Note also that we
are limiting the commitment to actual expenses, not to exceed $1,000
per plenary on average and would be limited to the listed sessions
requiring new approval thereafter. This is modeled after the approach
we used with supporting Arnie's T&L a few years ago, and certainly is
a level we can handle within our current budget.
  - I have communicated with Paul and Buzz and we agree that this is
not a long-term solution, as Buzz will someday  desire to "retire"
from IEEE 802 as well. We agree that a succession plan is needed and
are investigating the best way forward there. This will be a difficult
function to fill with a volunteer, as it involves little
technical/standards work, and yet consumes significant time and
commitment. Since Buzz is willing and able, I think this is a wise
investment of a limited amount of our funds in the short term.
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.