Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

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