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

Re: [802SEC] LMSC deadbeats


I recognize that my proposal is a bit wordy, but I believe it states
that this would apply only to those that have been contacted, i.e. those
from whom we have received some response.  That is certainly the intent.
 It would be less than clever to declare someone, that we have never
been able to contact, a deadbeat.



"Rigsbee, Everett O" wrote:
> Bill,  So we're back to reading the list of deadbeats for the prior plenary meeting.
> Can we at least insure that those so identified are intentional deadbeats and not someone we were unable to contact ???
> Ignorance is no excuse, but folks should at least get an option to redeem themselves.  Failure to do so once informed is just grounds for rebuke.
> Thanx,  Buzz
> Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> Boeing - SSG
> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> Seattle, WA  98124-2207
> (425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Quackenbush []
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:11 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