Subject: Re: SLR Fee
From: John Michael Williams (jwill@pacbell.net)
Date: Fri Aug 25 2000 - 17:27:09 PDT
Hi Gabe.
I have two comments on your persuasive but hopefully
misinformed message:
Gabesmoretti@aol.com wrote:
>
> I have watched with interest the small discussion on this subject, and I
> believe that most people have not understood the real reason for this
> proposal.
> The reason is not to recover costs for developing standards, at $50.00 at the
> time even 100 outsiders would only amount to $5,000.00 which, if you have
> been keeping up with IEEE budgets, is just chicken feed.
> The reason is to boost the membership in the IEEE-SA, an organization of
> dubious value to most IEEE members. Unfortunately, once established the SA
> will now want to show a profit and a continuous increase in membership: that
> is politics and no one can change it.
So, "we're not really LYING about needing outside
experts--it's just a 'political announcement', like,
say, 'sex'"? Or like hiring relatives, because otherwise
"we get lonely and nervous and can't do our jobs
or shuffle our papers"?
If correct, this is a serious charge of deception.
And it should be changed, if true. It certainly CAN be.
>It is therefore very significant
> within the IEEE sphere who gets to pay the $50.00: this is not a big communal
> pot of money we are talking about!
> So, SA hopes to get an incremental amount of money and additional members,
> this is significant for them, and the IEEE does gain something as well. If
> every WG must justify an outside expert, the expert can then be approached to
> join. Also there is negative side of the argument: if every WG Chair has to
> do more work, may be a few experts will be left outside of the voting group:
> again an incentive to join. If everything else fails, a few $50.00 packets
> get sent to SA with an appropriate self-righteous note about SA not doing
> enough to persuade the right people to join.
> In either case, the perturbation to any DASC WG will exist but not be
> excessive. A better use of our resources would be to lobby for recognition
> of membership in "similarly respectable" standard making organizations, like
> the IEC for example as an automatic reason to wave the $50.00 ballot tax.
> Gabe
I could see not requiring certain IEC members to pay SA dues for
good reason. However, why not just let IEC draw up the standard if
IEEE can't handle it? Few customers will buy a standards
document drafted by IEEE in an area not within its scope or
interest--certainly, few IEEE members would, anyway, and that's
the bulk of the engineering standards customer base.
>
> Gabe Moretti
> 7101 Longview Drive
> Niwot, CO 80503
> Email: gabesmoretti@aol.com
--
John
jwill@pacbell.net
John Michael Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Aug 25 2000 - 17:33:51 PDT