Re: [802SEC] LMSC deadbeats
Bill-
About who to send it to...
The Working Group Chair
Anyone on the SEC from the debtor's company
Any well-known, established attendee from the same company.
Preferably in the same WG.
The criteria should be:
Not a lot of research
Will exert the most pressure
Geoff
At 11:09 AM 10/22/2003 -0700, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
>Pat,
>
>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.
>
>Suggestions?
>
>pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pat
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> > 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
> >
> > Carl,
> >
> > 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,
> >
> > wlq
> >
> > "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:billq@attglobal.net]
> > > > 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
> > > >