RE: [802SEC] Deadbeat rule change proposal
Bill,
As I said, I've lost track of the proposed language
and proposed changes ... I didn't intend to infer
that there was necessarily something lacking ... just
that I need to review the wording.
As I said, maybe I'm an optimist, but I don't see
why we can't resolve all issues at the Sunday night
rules meeting.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:16 AM
> To: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)
> Cc: IEEE 802 SEC
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Deadbeat rule change proposal
>
>
> Carl,
>
> I infer from the second paragraph of this email that you believe that
> the sanctions in the proposed section 6 apply unequally to
> LMSC and non
> LMSC sponsored meetings. Is my inference correct, and if
> correct, what
> about the wording leads you to this conclusion? My intent
> was that the
> sanctions apply equally.
>
> Thanks,
>
> wlq
>
> "Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)" wrote:
> >
> > I could support the "statute of limitations" of
> > 5-7 years (though I am also loath to let them off
> > the hook, the record-keeping burden bodes in favor
> > of such a provision).
> >
> > Still, however, how to we add some "teeth" to the
> > rules to deal with deadbeats at WG-sponsored interims?
> >
> > Carl
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:12 PM
> > > To: IEEE 802 SEC
> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Deadbeat rule change proposal
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > Having written the proposed rule change, I may not be
> able to read it
> > > objectively. However, I offer the following thoughts to this
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > Change to Section 2
> > > -------------------
> > >
> > > The change to this section was to ALLOW the LMSC
> Treasurer to collect
> > > fees from attendees at 802 sponsored interims. Strictly
> speaking, the
> > > current wording does not allow the Treasurer to collect
> fees for any
> > > interim meeting. The expenses for an 802 sponsored interim
> > > meeting ARE
> > > expenses of operating 802. This authorizes the Treasurer
> to collect
> > > fees for 802 sponsored interim meetings that are 802
> > > operating expenses
> > > and but not collect fees for 802 meetings that are
> sponsored by other
> > > entities and are not 802 operating expenses. And since fees
> > > will not be
> > > collected for meetings not sponsored by 802, the funds
> from those two
> > > categories of meetings will not be comingled.
> > >
> > > Given the reaction to this proposed change to Section 2, I
> > > suggest that
> > > the sentence in question should be changed to something like
> > >
> > > "The LMSC Treasurer may collect fees from all
> attendees of any
> > > meeting held in conjuction with a Plenary session
> to cover the
> > > expenses of the Plenary session and the expenses of
> operating
> > > the LAN MAN Standards Committee". The LMSC Treasurer
> > > may collect
> > > fees from all attendees of any meeting held in
> > > conjuction with an
> > > LMSC sponsored interim meeting to cover the expenses of
> > > the interim
> > > meeting."
> > >
> > > I see no reason the make the collection of fees mandatory.
> > > The will be
> > > collected if they are needed.
> > >
> > > The objection to placing any mention of fees for interims in this
> > > section applies equally to any mention of fees for
> Plenary meetings as
> > > the topic of the section is the opening (Monday morning) plenary
> > > meeting. I simply added interims meetings to what was
> there to avoid
> > > for the moment undertaking a more extensive reorganization of
> > > the rules
> > > which they desperately need. The above two sentences can
> be moved to
> > > another place in the rules if that is the desire of the SEC.
> > >
> > > New Section 6
> > > -------------
> > >
> > > This section speaks of "LMSC standards development group
> or subgroup
> > > meetings". i.e. meetings of an LMSC standards development group or
> > > subgroup. It says nothing about who sponsored the meetings.
> > > Therefore,
> > > this section applies equally to meetings sponsored by the LMSC and
> > > meetings sponsored by other entities.
> > >
> > > The last sentence of this section was added at the suggestion
> > > of another
> > > SEC member. I believe that Bob Grow is correct in
> pointing out that
> > > LMSC P&P 3.1,f applies here. Based on Bob's observation, the
> > > paragraph
> > > needs to be modified. Perhaps the sentence should simply end with
> > >
> > > "responsibility of the LMSC Treasurer and the LMSC
> > > Executive Secretary."
> > >
> > > The implementation of the policy should/must consider the
> input of the
> > > WG/TAG chairs.
> > >
> > > Bob Love has suggested a "statue of limitations". While I am
> > > not a fan
> > > of letting the basters off the hook, a window of maybe 5
> or 7 years
> > > might be useful to 802 in that it limits the length of
> time we need to
> > > maintain our records.
> > >
> > > Comments please.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > wlq
> > >
> > > Geoff Thompson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > >
> > >
>