Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: Redirection of IPF dollars

Buzz -

There seem to be two things needed here:

1) Some clarity from the standards department with regard to what it would
take to make our standards freely available (and I take it that what we are
talking about here is freely available PDF; there is no reason to stop
selling the paper versions if there is a market for them).

2) Some clarity from the WGs that this is something that we want to do
(Certainly, the sentiment in 802.1 is strongly in favour of this happening;
no clear picture at present from the other WGs).

Certainly, if we are planning to spend $100 of each participant's money, we
need answers to both questions.

As far as I can tell, there no longer seems to be any doubt over the third
possible question; namely whether we want to continue sending this money to
ANSI (correct me if I'm wrong).

So the right steps would seem to me to be:

a) Take an immediate decision to stop supporting ANSI with our meeting
dollars.  As you have already been pointed out, it can successfully be
argued that any such payment is now in direct violation of our own rules;
we really don't need the pain of being called to account on this.  If we
can't get to d) at the November meeting, reduce the meeting fee to $50 (or
maybe slightly more, to allow for future eventualities) immediately, making
it clear that this is a temporary measure, and that the fee may revert to
its current level when d) is resolved.  The alternative is to start a
separate fund pending resolution, but I guess that is probably not a smart

b) In all WGs where this issue has not already been discussed, develop a
position on whether participants support the principle of using $100 (or
similar amount) of the meeting fee as a means of achieving free
distribution of our standards.  We should then be in a position to clarify
the views of 802 on this by the end of the Kauai meeting.

c) Get the necessary information/commitment from the standards
department/standards board in order to inform whatever agreement comes out
of b).

d) Agree what we will do given the outcome of of b) and c).


At 18:05 20/10/99 -0700, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
>Bob,  I like that idea too, but at least the way I read the motion, we're
not getting that!  We're giving our money in hopes that they can promote
the idea of making P802 standards freely available electronically.  That
sound a little too much like Werner Earhardt's Hunger Project to me.  We're
not guaranteed to get anything as far as I can see.  It's like paying for a
lobbyist.  I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of doing that without at
least the specific mandate to do it from the taxpayers (our attendees).  If
they indicate clearly by a vote that they are willing to make such an
investment with money from their fees, then we're OK.  Without that we're
behaving like those Washington politicians who are always ready to spend
other folks money to support causes that they like.  I'd prefer a more
democratic approach, especially if we're acting in violation of our own rules.
>Thanx,  Buzz
>Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>Boeing SSG
>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>Seattle, WA  98124-2207
>ph: (425) 865-2443, fx: (425) 865-6721

>> ----------
>> From:[]
>> Sent: 	Wednesday, October 20, 1999 5:42 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: 	RE: Redirection of IPF dollars
>> Buzz, I love the idea of using the funds to make the resultant standards
>> available.  Most of us that have enough business interest to pay the 802
>> fees have an equally strong interest in seeing the standards freely
>> It is the right way to proceed!
>> Best regards.
>> Robert D. Love
>> Program Manager, IBM ACS - US
>> Chair IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Working Group
>> IBM
>> 500 Park Offices                   Phone: 919 543-2746
>> P. O. Box 12195 CNPA/656           Fax: 419 715-0359
>> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA    E-Mail:
>> "Rigsbee, Everett O" <> on 10/20/99
08:18:45 PM
>> To:, 802 Howard Frazier <>
>> Subject:  RE: Redirection of IPF dollars
>> Howard,  I would suggest that we really need to consider a 3rd option,
>> *    In order to comply with our own rules which mandate that meeting fees
>> collected at plenary sessions be used exclusively to defray the costs
>> with putting on the meeting, IEEE802 resolves to stop contributions to
>> the ISO secretariat and use the savings to not only prevent the otherwise
>> necessary further increase in the meeting fees, but instead reduce the
>> fees (~$50).
>> I would like to see us take a poll of ALL of our WG attendees that
>> whether we should:
>> a).  Continue with our current level of contributions to support the ISO
>> secretariat.
>> b)  Give the same amount to the IEEE-SA instead to promote the idea of
>> P802 standards freely available electronically.
>> c)  Retain the money to prevent future increase in plenary meeting fees and
>> reduce the fees instead (~$50).
>> We should collect the information during the Nov. WG meetings for review
>> action by the SEC on Thursday evening.
>> I believe we need to hear the sentiments of all of our attendees before
we take
>> any unilateral action.
>> Thanx,  Buzz
>> Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>> Boeing SSG
>> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>> Seattle, WA  98124-2207
>> ph: (425) 865-2443, fx: (425) 865-6721
>> email:
>> > ----------
>> > From:   Howard Frazier[]
>> > Sent:   Wednesday, October 20, 1999 3:26 PM
>> > To:
>> > Subject:     Redirection of IPF dollars
>> >
>> > At the July SEC meeting, Bill Lidinsky presented a motion during
>> > agenda item 4.9 which read:
>> >    In order to further the goal of making P802 standards free and
>> >    electronically available to the public worldwide, IEEE P802 resolves
>> >    that all P802 funds now used to support ISO secretariats be
>> >    diverted to supporting the IEEE-SA in achieving the above goal.> 
>> > Consideration of this motion was postponed to the November meeting by
>> > a vote of 9/3/1.
>> > I will put this item at the top of the agenda for the monday morning
>> > exec meeting.  Will we be ready to have some discussion and reach a

>> > conclusion?  I haven't seen any additional information about this issue
>> > on the reflector.
>> > Howard Frazier
>> >