> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi, Virgilio,
>
> Virgilio Rodriguez wrote:
> ...
>> At the end of the day, the IEEE still has "net assets" (reserves) of
>> US$158 millions, which seems atypical for a professional society.
>
> The IEEE is a professional society *and* a standards organization.
> However, as has been pointed out, it compares to the ACM in assets.
>
>> Now, I don't know as much about the NSF as others in this list. However,
>> it is my impression that the NSF mission does not include providing
>> "buffer" funds for private corporations (even if they are "non profit"),
>> so that they are immunised against future uncertainties or market
>> fluctuations.
>
> The NSF pays for us to attend meetings. They understand that meetings
> sometimes result in a profit, and other times result in a loss. They
> don't have issue with this, provided (generally) that the meeting is
> organized by a non-profit entity.
>From the IEEE own report, it is clear that conferences are yielding a net
monetary benefit, and a subtantial and increasing one, in the millions.
My suggestion was that it was relevant to the discussion to know what the
NSF thinks about these issues, including legal/contract aspects and the
possibility of their requesting a refund.
It was a direct and clear statement, which is on record.
Now, you indicate that you know what their position is. If so, fine.
I appreciate your response.
Virgilio
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment