| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
G’day George I agree we should limit the scope of this discussion to the question of payment for remote-only meetings. Including other dimensions, such as hybrid meetings, will only confuse the issues and make
a timely conclusion unlikely. I will observe that requiring payment by everyone logging into a call is difficult to enforce unless we increase the access security levels, which has its own costs. That reality suggests we should
focus enforcement to where it is practical. It is easy to require and enforce payment, because we have relatively accurate lists, for those that:
In only asking for payment for people in these categories, we are essentially aligning payment requirements with
participation rather than attendance. The rest are essentially observers. Assuming the incremental cost to IEEE 802 of observers is very low at a remote-only meeting, I would argue that the benefit to IEEE 802 of having people observe is greater
than any marginal revenue from making them pay ; today’s observers are tomorrow’s participants. We also avoid having to chase ghosts! Andrew From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of George Zimmerman All – to be clear, this discussion was about enforcement for a modest fee for virtual meetings. In my view, in-person meetings follow existing policy, and hybrid meetings are TBD. I respectfully request that we keep the scope of the discussion to that limited issue. It is important that we make a decision on this in the March meeting cycle, if we are to implement it and begin offsetting expenses
with the July meeting. The discussion may raise other issues, but if we try to resolve future policy for as-yet-undefined hybrid meetings, future policy for in-person meetings, or creating a new ‘observer’ class of member in this effort, we
will not make a timely decision and miss the opportunity, ensuring that we lose another $25k to $35k. I did raise the possibility that we not enforce non-payment, but I do not support that path. Attendees who pay for meeting participation do not generally consider it a ‘goodwill donation’, and I personally believe it
is ill-advised and unfair to move forward with a policy where we overtly say “we are not going to enforce this”. Regarding other groups, note that IEEE 802 collects no annual membership fee, as some groups do (US company members of the IEC, for example, pay over $1k per year to join, depending on company revenue). Our existing rules for face to face meetings already dealt with the issue of holding the meeting outside of the plenary week – I do not recall whether we have simply suspended that rule or if we have yet amended it to
account for electronic plenary sessions – but we need to make sure we amend it appropriately. (again, a topic for a separate discussion). -george From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of John D'Ambrosia Glenn, I find this proposal to be fiducially irresponsible, and unfair to those participants who attend, and would get stuck paying additional money to support hybrid meetings either directly or indirectly.
I would vote again hybrid meetings if the proposed registration fee is not enforced. Regards, John From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of Glenn Parsons Folks, In the discussion of whether we should charge for electronic versions of electronic plenaries, I offer several points for consideration. In IETF that has started charging registration fees for their electronic plenaries, it has been widely observed that many WGs are choosing not to meet during the plenary week to avoid these fees. Instead they schedule
multiple interim sessions, sometimes in the week adjacent to the IETF plenary week. The point is that the IETF electronic plenary attendance in paid format is significantly lower than it was when there was no registration. Further there is an exponential
growth in IETF interims that were quite rare pre-COVID. In 802.1, we currently have two very active joint projects on TSN profiles with other SDOs – one with IEC and another with SAE. The growth in attendance at 802.1 meetings (we had 130 attendees in November) is driven
in large part by this work. Those organizations do not charge registration fees for in-person meetings, let alone electronic meetings, so it was already difficult to justify the extra cost of in-person registration. I would expect these groups to request
extra interims to avoid a virtual plenary meeting fee. For 802, an electronic meeting fee will add an overhead if there is to be any “deadbeat” enforcement. The easiest is to audit/compare the registrants after the meeting and remove attendance credit for anyone who did
not pay. The most complex would be distributing webex passwords only to registered attendees. Perhaps at the same level of complexity is to have multiple levels of attendee such that the chair of the meeting has to know if the speaker is a paid attendee
or an unpaid observer. As a result, I would propose that should we decide to charge a registration fee for virtual plenaries, that we do not enforce it. Cheers, Glenn. From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
On Behalf Of Jon Rosdahl Greetings. I have been monitoring WebEx reports vs IMAT reports. For a Plenary or Interim week, I found that there are many that show up as "observers" (seen on Webex, but not on IMAT). I also found many that claimed credit for attendance that did not show up on the Webex Report (IMAT recorded, Webex absent). Now it can be argued that "getting attendance" credit to claim voting rights is important enough to mark IMAT even when not on a call is not a "big deal". We had this same issue debated when we had in person sessions, and we audited the attendance counts vs IMAT reporting. In that case, some were embarrassed, and then claimed that we should take their money and give them credit toward voting rights. The leadership at the time were accused of treating them like school children, requiring them to mark attendance accurately. so if we have Electronic, in person, or hybrid sessions. We have the same issue to cope with. Some will want to attend without paying the price, whether it is as simple as IMAT recording, or some monetary value. As for follow up on the "Deadbeats", we have to note them when it occurs...
In the in person meetings, seeing people without a badge in the meeting rooms or participating in the F&B, we make note of it and follow-up. do we "catch" 100%...no, but we do Audit the hotel registration for those claiming to be in our group and ensure that they are registered and paid the meeting fee. We audit those
claiming attendance and ensure they are registered and paid the meeting fee. For Electronic meetings, I would expect no different.
If you are on Webex, then you should have paid a registration fee (if one applies).
If you are claiming attendance, then you should have paid a registration fee (if one applies). It should also be noted that "Deadbeats" also pay the onsite registration (the highest rate). This includes folks that "forgot" to pay earlier....Jon Rosdahl and Paul Nikolich included (at least once each). So enforcement will require an audit report from the WG chairs on who was present and who requested attendance credit to compare with those that paid the agreed upon meeting fee. That is within the rules that George pointed out, and is what the Treasurer and Exec Secretary do in general. Regards, Jon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Rosdahl Engineer, Senior Staff
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 7:36 PM Andrew Myles (amyles) <00000b706269bb8b-dmarc-request@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1 |