RE: [802SEC] Deadbeat rule change proposal
I
agree with Geoff ... I don't think it was ever the intent to
co-mingle
802
general/plenary funds with funds from/for interims.
The
intent, as I understood/supported it, was to provide rules for
the
uniform treatment/enforcement/punishment for deadbeats,
whether
at
plenaries or interims and regardless of whether those interims
were
802-sponsored or WG-sponsored.
As I
said in an earlier message, I've frankly lost track of the
various
proposed wording changes, but I think the ideas are clear (at
least
to
me):
a)
Provide uniform rules for the
treatment/enforcement/punishment
of
deadbeats, whether at 802 plenaries or 802.x WG/TAG
interims,
including joint interims like the wireless WGs have been
having.
b) Not
co-mingle (non-802-sponsored) interim funds with 802
general/plenary funds.
I may
still be an eternal optimist due to my short tenure on the
SEC,
but it seems to me that we ought to be able to hammer out
language issues/nuances at our Sunday night rules meeting
...
Carl
Buzz-
You are missing my point.
I
am happy to support uniform punishment and standards therefore. That was the
charter.
I am not happy to have, as an inadvertent add-on, that Plenary
Funds and inter funds will be mixed and that the purpose of interim funds
become the operation of LMSC. For example, the next step for that might be
that the interim registration fee would go up so the Plenary fee cold go down.
That was not the purpose of this change.
Bill's revised wording said:
- "...fees from .. a ... Interim ... cover the expenses of operating the
LAN MAN Standards Committee."
That is not OK with me. The
fees from an interim cover the expenses of the interim, not the expenses of
operating the LAN MAN Standards Committee as a
whole.
Geoff
At 12:41 PM 3/5/2003 -0800, Rigsbee, Everett O
wrote:
Geoff, I believe the intention was to
achieve a uniform requirement for payment of announced meeting fees, whether
for plenaries or for interims, so that we might have some basis for uniform
enforcement to protect both IEEE 802 and our hosting companies from
non-cooperative deadbeats. A consistent policy is always easier to
enforce uniformly than a plethora of committee specific rules that vary from
group to group. If we want to encourage hosts to continue to
volunteer, we need to offer them at least some basis for fee enforcement to
protect their downside.
Thanx,
Dr. Everett
O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle,
WA
ph: (425) 865-2443
fax: (425)
865-6721
email:
-----Original
Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:41 AM
To: Rigsbee, Everett
O
Cc: Geoff Thompson; Bill Quackenbush; IEEE 802
SEC
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Deadbeat rule change
proposal
Buzz-
My point
here is that the current situation is:
Plenaries and the operation
of 802 are current funded, by practice and rule, by the fees that
participants pay to attend plenaries.
Interims are funded by means
other than tapping the 802 treasury (with the exception of use of 802
capital equipment)
I find no mandate to change that situation in the
project that Bill has taken on to tighten up the wording on
deadbeats.
I have no desire to change the current situation in that
regard, actually more than that. I am opposed to changing the (1+n) approach
to a single pot approach.
Geoff
At 02:32 PM 3/4/2003
-0800, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
Geoff, I think in this context that Bill is referring to
802-hosted interim meetings (such as the January 802.3/.1 meeting). In
this case the Treasurer does collect the fees on behalf of IEEE 802.
Non-802-hosted interims would be the exception to this rule.
Thanx, Buzz
Dr.
Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA
98324-2207
(425)
865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original
Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:46 AM
To: Bill
Quackenbush
Cc: IEEE 802 SEC
Subject: Re: [802SEC]
Deadbeat rule change proposal
Bill-
I
have some general problems with your proposal.
RE the original form
of the phrase:
The LMSC Treasurer may collect fees from all attendees of
any meeting held in conjunction with the
a Plenary or
Interim session to cover the expenses of operating the LAN MAN
Standards Committee.
...probably needs to be updated from "may" to
"shall".
Either way, I don't think the modification for interims
belongs here in the current context.
It is not the job of the LMSC
Treasurer to collect fees from an Interim session to cover the expenses of
operating the LAN MAN Standards Committee.
Rather, LMSC Treasurer
through the conference organizer may collect fees from all attendees of an
interim meeting to cover the expenses of the interim meeting.
If we
go with the currently proposed text then we are signing up for all sorts of
grief about whose interims are supporting plenary operation and whose are
not.
Also, I am a little unhappy about a policy that is so completely
rigid and has no provision for input from the affected WG
Chair.
Geoff
At 04:35 PM 3/3/2003 -0800, Bill Quackenbush
wrote:
All,
Attached is my first draft of the proposed
deadbeat rule changes.
I have put the new material in a new section
so that it applies equally
to any LMSC standards development group
meeting.
Your comments are
encouraged.
Thanks,
wlq