Geoff, Sounds like we are once again in
violent agreement on this. J
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003
3:47 PM
To: Rigsbee, Everett
O
Cc: Geoff Thompson; Bill
Quackenbush; IEEE 802 SEC
Subject: 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