|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Since 802 sponsored interims require SEC approval, I don't think we want to add anything to the rules about $0 net budgeting for those meetings.
I thought the rules change was intended to create consistent treatment of deadbeats from LMSC hosted interims, other-entity hosted interims, and plenary meetings. Bill's proposed "hammer" being that a deadbeat irrevocably looses all attendance credit and member status. Bill's language is close but needs improvement because it is too LMSC host focused, thus excluding other-entity hosted interims or unintentionally co-mingling funds from other-hosted interims.
Geoff points out an important nuance of the language on the money, I previously pointed out another problem with the language of the last paragraph on who decides (you and Bill have little to do with an other-entity hosted interim).
From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:52 PM
To: Geoff Thompson
Cc: Bill Quackenbush; IEEE 802 SEC
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Deadbeat rule change proposal
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 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.
"...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, 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