Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009 - Please VOTE Now !!!
FYI, my vote would be for Rome (though I am a singe voice with no WG to
I recommend pricing venues at their cost and minimizing cost averaging
for now. I think registration fees as high as $1000 for a week (while
undesirable) are not impossible to accommodate. I think that as we gain
experience with fielding large NNA sessions we will find ways to brings
to cost to more acceptable levels.
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of David Bagby
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009 - Please VOTE
There are two concepts that have floated thru this discussion that I
rather disturbing. I'm not trying to offend - but I know of no easy way
say this via email (where one can't smile etc to lessen the emotional
of saying something someone may not want to hear) - uh, but, I'm
to think SEC attitudes have taken on some of the (at least to me)
attributes of a government bureaucracy...
Have any SEC members ever been annoyed when government acts as if it
what's good for you better than you do?
Would you be surprised or troubled by the idea that you're considering
acting in the same manner?
1) Attempting to dictate behavior via taxes.
The idea of charging more for registration depending on where one stays
find very troublesome. I perceive this as an attempt to force behavior
taxation. I strongly prefer a free market approach - if 802 offers
people will stay at the meeting hotel, if we don't they won't. The
them 'cuse they aren't doing what I want" attitude is annoying. In fact,
have to honestly say that I find it very offensive - I realize some
don't, but I do - and I thought someone should at least offer the other
viewpoint for consideration.
2) Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Along the same lines, I find the concept of artificially making the nNA
fess lower by "borrowing from the treasury" to be disingenuous. The only
reason for doing that is to make the reg fee required for nNA APPEAR to
less. The motivation is clearly a concern that members will not attend
because of the higher fees involved.
What justifies taxing attendees a lower cost sessions to pay for
at higher cost sessions?
This registration fee redistribution comes smells to me like "Tax 'em
we can; we'll put it in the general fund to use as we see fit; we know
what's good for 'em better than they do". The idea makes me shudder....
If one really thinks that attendance is a function of registration fee,
logical extrapolation is that transferring part of the fee to NA venues
negatively impact NA attendance - it seems that this relationship is
conveniently ignored in the discussion.
I'd ask Sec members to try to strive to lean more toward "represent the
members and do what they want" and less toward "make the members do what
Calypso Ventures, Inc.
office: (650) 637-7741
email: Dave@CalypsoVentures.com or David.Bagby@ieee.org
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.