RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++802 Plenary network expenditures
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:23 PM
> To: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl); Paul Nikolich; Bill
> Quackenbush; IEEE 802
> SEC; Paul Nikolich
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++SEC MOTION+++802 Plenary network expenditures
> I did vote to approve didn't I?
Yes, you did ... perhaps I should have recognized that, but
I thought it was obvious.
> I thought I was presenting
> quick typical and bad-case analysis for how the fee was still
> reasonable for a typical attendee.
My apologies ... I misinterpreted your numbers as questioning
> While I personally appreciate the network access you talk
> about below as much as you do, I don't believe the network is
> there for members of the SEC it has to be justified for the
> average attendee.
I agree completely ... it was not my intention to imply that
the network was there (just) for the members of the SEC.
> I still receive occasional complaints from
> some of my members that they can't (because of corporate
> policies) or don't use the network. The number of attendees
> using the network is increasing, and I believe now is
> certainly in the majority, but as Bob pointed out, it isn't
> Why did I pick 3 and 4 days? 3 days is what is required for
> 75% attendance in some of the WGs and 4 is 75% for the other
> WGs. Though the original numbers were purely a SWAG, I
> checked the average attendance for 802.3 registrants at DFW
> and guess what, it was 3.16 days. (I do recognize hotel
> nights would be slightly larger because no one from 802.3
> signs in on Sunday or Friday yet we are there using the network).
Thanks for the explaination.
> Have a nice weekend!