Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Definition of hotel stay
I vote "approve"
My reasoning is: I don't want us to incur significant penalties for
not meeting our contracted room commitments due to one-night guests
"blocking" the hotel from multi-night guests. Which is the issue as I
understand it (an un-intended consequence of the one-night rule).
Some further reactions to the email threads:
I am pleased to see the EC clarifying its intent, and further defining
what constitutes a stay. It keeps me, as Treasurer, out of the
dog-house -- if we do lose money in this way, it was justified by an
explicit EC decision (this one), not my interpretation of a loosely
worded one (the one in July).
Matt makes a good, common-sense argument (I made it myself in the
early days). Unfortunately, that's not the way hotels (at least in NA)
work, so the argument is not with us, but with the Hyatt's out there.
In a sense, they regard the conference facilities as "loss leaders"
for the guest rooms. If they have a full conference facility and empty
guest rooms, they lose money (so we're told). Having said that, the
experience in Singapore is leading me to believe that in non-NA
settings, you get hit both ways: pricey rooms, AND exorbitant
conference facility charges. So be careful what you ask for.
As Geoff says, we can deal with this later "for real," but I think
we'll end up right back where we are, having to require either an
up-front fee or a >1 night stay at the property. Note that I *hate*
having to enforce this sort of rule. It's a pain, lots of work for the
staff, and quite a bit like being a debt-collector - never a popular
guy. The issues of multi-guest rooms, local attendees, and what to do
for people attending a single day also are a pain and will need to be
dealt with in terms of policy. SO if people have better ideas, let's
keep the conversation going.
My sincere apologies for missing the interim session call yesterday...
now you know why you need a new Treasurer! :-)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 4:26 PM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: [802SEC] +++ 10-day EC Email Ballot +++ Definition of hotel
>> Dear 802 EC members
>> Paul Nikolich has delegated the conduct of the EC electronic ballot on
>> the following motion to me.
>> In the November 2009 meeting, the EC passed the following motion:
>> "IEEE-802 Registration Procedures will be effective for the March 2010
>> meeting as follows:
>> 1) We will advance the registration cut-off date by 2-weeks, from
>> 17-days prior to the meeting, to 31-days prior to the meeting.
>> 2) We will advance the hotel room-block cut-off by the same amount so
>> that both occur on the same date.
>> 3) We will adjust the Session Registration Fees to the following
>> o Web Early-Registration Fee (prior to 31-day cut-off) will remain
>> at $400.US
>> o Web Registration Fee (after the Early-Registration cut-off but at
>> least 7-days before start of session (Monday) will now be $500.US
>> o Late Web or On-site Registration (less than 7-days before or during
>> the session) will now be $600.US
>> 4) A $300.US surcharge will be added to the registration fee for those
>> attendees not booking and staying in the 802-contracted hotel. Proof of
>> hotel stay will be required to prevent the surcharge."
>> The purpose of this motion is to clarify what a "hotel stay" means.
>> Accordingly, the motion is as follows:
>> Moved that "In order to avoid paying the $300 US surcharge on the
>> registration, a hotel stay is defined as at least two nights booking and
>> staying in the 802 contracted hotel. The effect of voting no on this
>> motion is that a hotel stay is defined as at least one night booking and
>> staying in the 802 contracted hotel." Effective beginning with the
>> November 2010 meeting.
>> Move: Gilb
>> Seconded: Law
>> Note that although I am moving the motion for the purpose of resolving
>> this issue, I will be voting no as I believe that the original motion is
>> clear that only a single night is required by the wording.
>> Start of ballot: Wednesday 5 October 2010 Close of ballot: Friday 15
>> October, 11:59PM AOE
>> Early close: As required in subclause 184.108.40.206 'Electronic Balloting' of
>> the IEEE project 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations
>> Manual, this is notice that, to ensure the release is provided in a
>> timely manner, this ballot may close early once sufficient responses are
>> received to clearly decide a matter.
>> James Gilb
>> 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.