|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Looking at the topics of November’s tutorials 1 and 2, there would be a lot of overlap in the people most interested in them. Both are on topics where it is expected that IEEE 802.3 voters will have to vote on – PAR under consideration for one and advancing to sponsor ballot for the other.
The discussion in slot 3 would benefit from more time, but it might make more sense to overlap the start of it with slot 2 than to parallel slots 1 and 2. That wouldn’t be ideal but it might be better than paralleling tutorials 1 and 2.
Another thought …
We have up to 5 parallel streams in a 802.11 meeting (typically 3-4). We occasionally get
complaints from members who do not have colleagues attending that they
are conflicted. So be it. Efficiency forces us in to this mode.
Perhaps tutorials would benefit from this too.
For example, parallel up this coming sessions tutorials 1 and 2, and
expand the tutorial #3 slot to 2 hours. If that forces folks to make a choice,
it is no different to the choices we force them to make in the WG.
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)
The focus on the tutorials started when we began to look at the issue with time.
Personally, I don’t think the “broader information exchange” happens with the bulk of people going to the tutorial sessions. Most typically go because there is a topic that interests them.
I trust the sponsors to evaluate the topic and ascertain whether they feel there is broad interest across 802 for a tutorial session. As you noted below, some are very narrow in scope. This input could be evaluated by Paul / Jon when approving tutorials, and then on a case by case basis we deal with how much time would be available for WGs to use.
Frankly, given that my own TF has over 50 presentations this week that needs to be heard – a couple of extra hours would be greatly appreciated if it were available.
I do not think tutorials are a good mechanism for the broad exchange of info. We tried the BoF, and then didn’t work so well either. Perhaps an annual plenary meeting during a tutorial session might be that mechanism to look for.
I don’t understand why the focus for the discussion was tutorials as the tutorials have been just Monday and using that time doesn’t gain much effective meeting time – especially
since most people have this unfortunate habit of wanting to eat occasionally.
As far as tutorials go, there have been times in the past, not recently but some years ago, when we allowed two tutorials or a tutorial and a CFI to run in parallel. While there are cross 802 topics and it is good to get the broader information exchange, there are also some tutorials that are comparatively narrow in interest.
Travel for a meeting starting on Monday often requires leaving on Sunday and sometimes on Saturday. I think that many would prefer to have one weekend impacted even if the impact eats deeper into the weekend rather than having two weekends impacted. Therefore, it is better to move to start earlier having some meetings on Sunday rather than pushing Working Groups to meet on Friday morning.
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl
I appreciate your input and candor.
What if we asked the WG to not close their work until Friday?
Would it make sense to have a 2 week meeting?
I agree that there are lots of alternatives.
Some like scrambled eggs while others like sunny side up or Benedict.
It is the alternatives that we will discuss, and then decide to follow a plan until we deem it needing to change.
And one of the alternatives is no change at all...
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:29 PM, <John_DAmbrosia@dell.com> wrote:
I disagree – this is not fine and not in line with the action item.
Personally – plenary weeks are very limited opportunities to get together with colleagues for general consensus building. But these weeks are so filled that we need to help our members find additional time.
Personally, I would throw out that the EC should consider meeting on Sunday in order to give a full day to the members on Monday. Things are that bad in terms of opportunities for us all to meet.
I think asking presenters to characterize their meetings is reasonable. They can describe it as something that is general or technology specific. For example, as chair of 400G group, my tutorial would be very specific to wireline technologies. I really doubt the 802.11 crowd would care about the technical details of a tutorial. They might care about the application uses. But as the tutorial creator – I would have a feeling for this.
If a meeting were not deemed generic, Paul could decree that the meeting time is available for use.
My $0.02 as someone having to deal with this issue.
On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl
It has been pointed out to me that there may be some that would like to respond directly to me rather than to the open group.
Please send feedback/comments to firstname.lastname@example.org
Always happy to help,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Jon Rosdahl <email@example.com> wrote:
I have an action item to start the discussion on the reflector for how can we maximize the time we have allocated for Tutorials.
Sometimes we have tutorials that some believe are not for the whole of 802.
Sometimes we have tutorials that everyone believes that they are for the whole of 802.
Sometimes we have tutorials that some believe are for only one WG.
This has caused a bit of angst. Historically, we have had rules that said that during the Plenaries no WG meetings were to be held on Monday or Tuesday to allow for the Tutorials to be held.
Then we has a period where WGs could hold meeting regardless of the Tutorial schedule.
Currently we have said that WGs should not hold meetings on Monday evenings, to clear the schedule for Tutorials, and that on Tuesday evenings if we have overflow Tutorials they can be held in parallel with WG meetings.
We all recognize that our time is short and very full.
Some WG utilize more time from Monday to Friday than others.
Each WG utilizes the amount of time to match what they believe their Members want.
How to squeeze more time has lead to this discussion on when a WG could try to gain more time?
Comments and suggestions?
I will look for your input and try to summarize both sides for discussion in San Antonio.