RE: [802SEC] LMSC deadbeats
I generally agree with what you say and I also agree with current practice of waiting until after preliminary contact efforts to straighten out clerical errors before making anything public. I was only pointing out that past practice wasn't entirely rash.
I would tend to precirculate to only EC members rather than to the SEC reflector because part of the idea of precirculation is to give companies a chance to clean their own houses before being publically embarrassed by a colleague. If it goes to the reflector, it is visible on the web.
I'm okay with leaving to the chairs the decision of whether to contact a fellow employee of an unpaid attendee, but the list is hopefully short so it shouldn't be much of a burden to contact a regular attendee to let them know what is coming. I certainly hope my chair would clue me in ahead of time if an Agilent person was on the list.
From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 11:09 AM
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
Subject: Re: [802SEC] LMSC deadbeats
As I pointed out, the non-public initial contacts that we now use avoid
any public attention until we are past the clerical error or
misunderstanding correction phase.
Yes, I will use "unpaid attendee" in any slide that I show instead of
"deadbeat". It is just that "deadbeat" is more expressive of one's
feeling about the situation.
I intend to precirculate the "unpaid attendee" list. The only question
is how widely should it be circulated, to EC members only, to the SEC
email alias, to .....?
With the size of many 802 WGs, I prefer to leave it to the chairs of the
WGs to notify fellow employees of "unpaid attendees", it that is their policy.
> Actually, in the past there were small number of persistant deadbeats - people who ignored requests to pay for well over a year. One eventually showed up at a later 802 meeting and paid after being confronted in person. Fortunately, it has been a small group.
> When I was treasurer and showed the list on Friday mornings, I tried to make it clear that these were people we needed to contact to straighten out our accounts without placing blame. There might have been a clerical error and I recall one case where someone left unexpectedly due to a medical situation. We also showed the list at the opening plenary. I have no problem with showing the list at opening plenaries. It may be better to use a term other than "deadbeat"
> I suggest we apply Geoff's suggestion a bit more broadly. As a chair, when there was someone on the delinquent list from a company with active participants in my group, I would usually forward the name to the people from that company and that often worked without a lot of effort on my part. It makes sense to circulate the list of names with companies to the Exec a month or so before the next plenary so they can have a chance to inform the company colleagues of any delinquents.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:59 AM
> To: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)
> Cc: IEEE 802 SEC; Dawn C. Slykhouse; Jennifer Hull
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] LMSC deadbeats
> This is a practice 802 has used in the past. Until maybe 3 years ago,
> there was a closing Plenary meeting on Friday morning and deadbeats were
> publicly identified at that meeting.
> With the demised on the closing Plenary meeting (notable lack of
> attendance), we have relied on a low profile method of collection in
> which F2F contacts the suspected deadbeats by email and informs them of
> their obligation to register and pay the registration fee and how to
> complete the registration process.
> This method, strongly advocated by Buzz, has been quite successful in
> several ways. It allows both sides to correct mistakes or
> misunderstandings in private and without public embarrassment. And it
> has yielded a very high collection rate. If I recall correctly, there
> has no one who has failed to eventually pay up for well over a year,
> until this July. But in at least one instance, the individual, who
> acknowledged being in attendance, still refused to pay after many email
> contacts and two letters. It took personally contacting an individual
> with the same employer with the threat of public announcement that
> finally resulted in the person becoming "motivated" to payup. This took
> a LOT of time and work.
> As I indicated, we still have about 6 deadbeats from the SF session and
> I just can't justify the time and effort it would take to continue the
> drill of multiple email contacts, multiple letters and finally employer
> contact to get each deadbeat to pay up.
> Best regards,
> "Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)" wrote:
> > Works for me, unless IEEE legal determines that
> > there could be some liability in doing so.
> > Carl
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:email@example.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:11 PM
> > > To: IEEE 802 SEC
> > > Cc: Dawn C. Slykhouse; Jennifer Hull
> > > Subject: [802SEC] LMSC deadbeats
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > wlq
> > >