Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009 - Please VOTE Now !!!
Matt,
We've been building a surplus in anticipation of subsidizing a non-NA
plenary, so I think we owe it to our attendees to use those funds for what
they were accumulated (we will, of course, maintain sufficient reserves, as
always, to cover the costs of an unanticipated cancellation).
My view that we should use the accumulated surplus that was intended to
subsidize a non-NA plenary to keep the registration fee as close as possible
to our "normal" range of NA meeting fees.
Regards,
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:51 PM
> To: david.bagby@IEEE.ORG; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: 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
> represent).
>
> 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.
>
> Mat
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Engineering Fellow
> BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Responses on venue for March 2009 - Please VOTE
> Now !!!
>
> Hi -
>
> There are two concepts that have floated thru this discussion that I
> find
> rather disturbing. I'm not trying to offend - but I know of
> no easy way
> to
> say this via email (where one can't smile etc to lessen the emotional
> impact
> of saying something someone may not want to hear) - uh, but, I'm
> beginning
> to think SEC attitudes have taken on some of the (at least to me)
> negative
> attributes of a government bureaucracy...
>
> Have any SEC members ever been annoyed when government acts as if it
> knows
> 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
> I
> find very troublesome. I perceive this as an attempt to force behavior
> via
> taxation. I strongly prefer a free market approach - if 802 offers
> value,
> people will stay at the meeting hotel, if we don't they won't. The
> "penalize
> them 'cuse they aren't doing what I want" attitude is
> annoying. In fact,
> I
> have to honestly say that I find it very offensive - I realize some
> others
> 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
> reg
> 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
> be
> less. The motivation is clearly a concern that members will not attend
> nNA
> because of the higher fees involved.
>
> What justifies taxing attendees a lower cost sessions to pay for
> attendees
> at higher cost sessions?
>
> This registration fee redistribution comes smells to me like "Tax 'em
> cuse
> 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,
> the
> logical extrapolation is that transferring part of the fee to
> NA venues
> will
> negatively impact NA attendance - it seems that this relationship is
> being
> 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
> SEC
> wants".
>
> Dave
>
> ____________
>
> David Bagby
>
> 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.
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.