Re: [802SEC] LMSC deadbeats
I would suggest that, as a courtesy to your colleagues on the Exec, that if
any deadbeat is employed by the same company as a member of the Exec, then
that member of the Exec be contacted privately in advance of the meeting to
let them work the issue.
Beyond that, I would take the exposure at the EC to be proper and,
moreover, a call for an action item for each WG chair to get into the
At 12:10 PM 10/21/2003 -0700, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
>There were about a dozen "unpaid attendees" at the July plenary session
>in SF. All of them have been contacted and about half of them have
>still not paid up.
>The amount of effort required to contact these individuals first by
>email and then with several increasingly stern letters is significant
>and in my opinion not worth the effort.
>Therefore I propose to introduce the policy that "unpaid attendees" of
>an LMSC session that have been contacted by email and that have neither
>pay up by the deadline stated in the P&P nor been determined to have not
>attended any portion of a LMSC technical meeting that was scheduled as
>part of the plenary session be publicly identified, along with their
>corporate affiliation, at the LMSC EC meeting and the LMSC plenary
>meeting on Monday morning. Each such individual will be notified by
>email that this identification will occur.
>Does anyone have a problem with such a policy?