RE: [802SEC] Deadbeat rule change proposal
At 02:52 PM 3/5/2003 -0800, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
Geoff,
OK, I certainly agree with that. I did miss your point. I
think Bill was trying to cover the case of the 802-hosted interim, in
which case the fees do accrue back to 802 if there is a surplus, but that
is offset by the downside risk of a potential loss.
The intention with 802-hosted interims is to budget for a net-zero
return, but as you know it is not always possible to control expenses so
tightly that you achieve precisely $0.
I realize that. I think we can live with the reality of that without full
commingling of funds
I
think if we clearly expressed the intention that for 802-hosted interims
the budget would be set to come as close to zero net as possible, we stay
safely away from the risk of using interim fees to subsidize 802 general
income. If we can continue to attract enough hosts for our
interims, this may be a machts nichts, but my impression is that several
groups (including 802.3) are having difficulty getting hosts to volunteer
due to the current state of the economy, so we may see more need for
802-hosted interims in the future. We just need to be prepared with
rules that cover those situations.
No argument, I just didn't want our rules changed as to the purpose of
Interim Attendance Fees.
Thanx,
Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
Geoff
-----Original
Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson
[mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:30 PM
To: Rigsbee, Everett O
Cc: Geoff Thompson; Bill Quackenbush; IEEE 802 SEC
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Deadbeat rule change proposal
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