RE: Projectors NOT COOKIES
I have to oppose this (and this is not a directed position!).
Clearly, projectors are our top priority. On the other hand, $2 per
person per day is NOT too much money to pay for a small comfort.
Look, my people (and yours too) work like mad for four days, and all
they ask for is a darn cookie in the afternoon. Standards developers
do not live by coffee alone.
I really don't think we need to choose between projectors and
cookies. Our group votes unanimously for cookies. If I did another
straw poll on whether they would still support cookies even if it
took an $8 fee increase to pay for them, I think that we'd get the
same poll results. Sure, people could buy their own cookies, but
they'd have to go off on their own and lose the social experience.
Remember, the great thing about IEEE standards is that the individual
makes it work. If the individual soul needs a little nourishment to
get the work done, then I say let's not begrudge it.
>Since Geoff has raised the issue of cookies, I had better follow through on
>one of my action items from July. The cost for cookies over the meeting
>week has been (with approximate tax and service):
>Site $/paid_attend $Total Notes
>LaJolla $10.10 $8580 $30/dozen
>Albuquerque $ 6.75 $4035 $20/dozen
>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 4:16 PM
>To: Geoff Thompson; firstname.lastname@example.org
>Subject: Re: Projectors NOT COOKIES
>At 15:37 18/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>I, Geoff Thompson, hereby move that 802 purchase no more cookies until all
>>of our equipment requirements are met and that further, in principle,
>>lower fees are more desirable than cookies at meetings.
>Seconded - Tony Jeffree.