Re: Projectors NOT COOKIES
Amen. Cookies are a Good Thing. They restore our blood sugar, cause friendly
endorphins to flow, and if there is chocolate in them, their caffeine perks up
our brain cells. Those with a macho attitude toward midafternoon nourishment
should note that the cookies enable meetings to run longer in the afternoon
because people are less anxious to get dinner. This factor alone means that the
cookies pay for themselves.
But the price does look excessive. Since Buzz has been so successful in
negotiating hotel rates with the Hyatt's national sales office, perhaps we could
authorize him or Dawn to negotiate a continuing contract with the national
office of Mrs. Fields' Cookies or an equivalent provider. Any leftovers from a
guaranteed quantity can be served at the Thurday evening EC meeting.
In considering "projectors or cookies" I conclude that the projectors probably
pay for themselves as well. In the past we handed out probably 25 lbs. of
documents per attendee, usually generated at local copy shops. With projectors
and networked servers, this is unnecessary, and the savings can be applied to
purchase of additional projectors.
"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
> 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
> >--Bob Grow
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 4:16 PM
> >To: Geoff Thompson; email@example.com
> >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.