Re: [802SEC] LMSC deadbeats
Geoff Thompson wrote:
> Not me.
> 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
> collection process.
> At 12:10 PM 10/21/2003 -0700, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
> >Gentle people,
> >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?