Sounds good to me Ginnie.

I'm a little concerned about the plagiarism concern.  Unless somebody's
got actual knowledge of it's occurrence, I don't think the assertion
should be mentioned.  If they do have actual knowledge, I think it's fair
to provide specifics.  I find it highly unlikely that this is a legitimate
concern.


At 06:49 PM 10/2/2000 EST, you wrote:
>Hi list --
>
>Many thanks for all these reactions and ideas.
>
>Here's my [as usual] long-winded set of thoughts, which as program
>chair I guess I'll implement unless between now and then a better
>idea comes along or the executive committee really doesn't like it.
>
>My inclination is continue the requirement that at least some number
>of hard copies be brought to the paper session because I think
>some substantial part of our membership expects to touch and feel
>hard copy when they hear a paper. It is also a sort of a "statute of
>frauds" - like thing -- maintaining a high quality of papers was a
>major major concern in the membership survey, and I wonder about
>the effects of not needing to produce a hard copy at all would have
>on quality, since we do not require advance submission of the paper
>in most cases but referee from the abstract.
>
>The rest of my inclination -- at least as a first departure from
>tradition -- is to let the paper presenter decide how to handle extra
>copies beyond X required number of hard copies (5? 10?). The
>presenter could keep bringing 25 hard copies or bring X hard
>copies +  25 - X diskette versions. Maybe someday we'll be able to
>install airports and just zap them to the audience's laptops as we
>speak, so to speak. [aside: Our son has installed an airport in our
>house; the DSL line will be installed Thursday; wireless high speed
>internet service from anywhere in the house and the yard, including
>under the magnolias. Does everybody else already have this and I
>am just behind the times, as usual, or is this cool ???]
>
>A table for sale of papers idea would be attractive if we had the
>person power to do it. It would make it a little harder to obtain a copy
>of a paper one has seen presented. And, alas, we might be throwing
>out more paper than we do now.
>
>The web site poses some issues like the one Royce raised. Having
>the proceedings on the web would not pose those problems. Maybe
>it is on the web. Maybe I ought to know. Help, Dan.
>
>The common computer scenario raises virus issues, I am told. We
>had thought that seemed like an excellent solution.
>
>I'm a little surprised by the plagiarism concerns, too. Another reason
>for omitting footnotes (which I have done) is to keep the length and
>weight reasonable, and footnotes shouldn't be all that important to
>the casual reader at a meeting. Those concerned about having their
>footnotes napstered (see, it's a verb now -- I napster, you napster,
>he napsters, we napster, ya'll napster, they napster) can do text-only
>electronic versions.
>
>Will this model be acceptable to the membership?
>
>Ginny
>
Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712