RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
David-
At 11:58 AM 10/9/2003 +0100, David Trinkwon wrote:
Thanks
for the suggestion Geoff, but it does not conform to "the
rules" which stipulate that a sign-in for an individual interval of
a WG signifies "substantial (>75%)" attendance /
participation during that interval. If I attend intervals of two (or
three) WGs based on my legitimate best efforts to participate /
contribute in all two / three groups (which have overlapping areas of
interest, as with 802.16, 802.120 and 802.18) then , according to the
rules, I might not be eligible to sign for "substantial"
participation within either / any group and would eventually lose ALL WG
memberships / voting rights.
I disagree. It is exceedingly unlikely that any WG Chair would challenge
the sign-in for anybody who only signed in for one meeting of a WG during
a Plenary Session
But, if you wish to reduce it to the pickiest of rules sifting
then...
Attendance is suppose to be taken each half day. WGs and their sub-group
get together for several meetings during the week. You can miss one
meeting of any group that meets for 4 or more half days and still make
the 75% requirement.
It is non-sensical to insist /
suggest (as Roger has done) that because there were meetings of other TGs
within 802.16 that I didn't have any technical expertise or interest in
then I could / should have "participated" there for the purpose
of signing in to retain membership credits, rather than spend my time
participating in a more relevant WG/TG meeting within the
"sister" groups.
It is equally non-sensical to
insist / suggest (as Roger has also done) that Company's should send more
people if participation is needed in more than one TG or WG. This is not
valid for individual contributors (such as myself) and dilutes the
"individual versus Corporate" membership ethos of IEEE802. It
is also not cost effective for those of us who travel from other
countries to send multiple people and/or sit in on irrelevant meetings
just to satisfy the bureaucracy.
I believe that this is yet
another area in which the 802 "Rules" have not kept up with the
proliferation of varied activities and WG / TG structures which cover its
multiple activities, and a bit more flexibility / common sense would be
appropriate. Where there are clearly associated "sister"
groupings (such as 802.11/15/18/19 and 802.16/18/20) then it should
be possible to move around freely within and between the various meetings
and retain voting rights / membership accordingly. Maybe we should really
be members of 802 rather than individual WGs, and maintain a note of our
802 and external affiliations as a matter of
record.
That is why we have a Sponsor Ballot requirement. You don't have to be a
WG member to vote in the Sponsor Ballot of any 802 Standard. Further,
Observer comments are taken seriously during Working Group Ballots. They
are taken VERY seriously if it is known to the comment resolution group
that the Observer will comment on the same issue as a voter at Sponsor
Ballot.
David
Geoff
-----Original
Message-----
From: gthompso@nortelnetworks.com
[mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: 08 October 2003 23:43
To: David Trinkwon
Cc: carlstevenson@agere.com; Klerer Mark; Geoff Thompson;
r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance
credit
David-
I believe that you can avoid any of these problems and maintain fully
legitimate voting privileges in 2 Working Groups at the same time by
doing the following:
(Let's assume for the sake of discussion that you are a long standing,
fully attending voter of WG-A and that WG-B is a newly created working
group)
You have established full attendance in WG-A
You fully attend the 1st session at a plenary of WG-B
and
sign-in only once at WG-A
You are now a legitimate voter in each WG.
At the next plenary you fully attend and sign in at WG-A and sign-in once
to WG-B
At the next plenary you fully attend and sign in at WG-B and sign-in once
to WG-A
Repeat ad nauseum.
You remain a legitimate voter in each WG as you meet the [2 of the last
4] criteria in each group on an on-going basis,
Your position is that you only bid for legitimate attendance in only one
WG per plenary and signed in at the other only to note your continued
interest and to keep your information up to date.
I believe that this is fully legit under 802 rules, any attendance at
interims is gravy, and it completely steps away from any double sign-in
issues.
Best regards,
Geoff
At 06:57 PM 10/8/2003 +0100, David Trinkwon wrote:
I am disturbed to see some of the
language now emerging about "double dipping" and other
derogatory phrases from people who seem to be ready to send me for court
martial. The various Rules that people have referred to don't
exactly fit the circumstances at Meeting 24, leaving some real anomalies
which I tried to overcome in a sensible way. These were summarised in my
email to Roger of 18th August - see below. Since the different WGs
don't exactly synchronise their sessions then it IS sometimes possible to
attend a non-overlapping interval of both. This is especially true when
(in the case of 802.16) there were VERY FEW actual meetings of the
relevant TGs and/or they didn't last very long - certainly not a whole
morning or afternoon.
Regarding Mark's agreement to give me credit in 802.10 for attending
802.18 then it seems that this might not be strictly valid since it was
impossible for 802.10 to be a "Home WG" for anyone at Mtg 24.
However, since this was the inaugural meeting of 802.20 it was obviously
more critical than usual to gain credit (i.e. membership, both to
participate in the election (yes - THAT election) and to avoid the 4 - 8
month membership qualification process.
If this is causing so much grief to so many people then I hereby elect to
KEEP my 802.20 credit (and membership) and forego the 802.16 credit (but
retain my membership for the moment, since 802.20 is "the
future" and 802.16 is "the past". However, I would urge
those that worry about the smooth running of 802 to seriously consider my
suggestion that full voting rights are given within any 802 Wireless WG
(or at least between 802.16 / 802.18 / 802.20 and presumably 802.11
/ 802.15 / 802.18 etc) for a member in good standing of ANY of the
"sister" WGs. Then we wouldn't have to play silly games to make
the system work. It should NOT be possible for WG chairs to discriminate
against participation in sister WGs (as happens between 802.16 and
802.20).
David Trinkwon
Email :
Trinkwon@compuserve.com
USA Tel : 650 245
5650
Fax : 650 649 2728
UK Tel : +44 (0)7802
538315 Fax : +44 (0)20 7504 3586
=====================================================================
Roger
As an individual member (which IEEE proudly insists that we all must be)
I have to do my best to represent the varied interests of myself and my
(multiple) clients. This means that I have legitimate reasons / needs to
cover the overlapping activities / interests of 802.16 TGd, TGe and
802.18 and 802.20 to the best of my ability. I try to do this within the
rules (to the extent that they cover the real world situation, which they
don't always do) and this is often exacerbated by the actions or
omissions of the various WG / TG chairs.
I have NOT broken any of the rules (which you imply), although some have
had to be bent to fit the circumstances. If the 802 rules were to be
applied literally then I could easily spend all week actively
participating in a number of meetings and not qualify for ANY
participation under any WG. Alternatively I would have to sit in on some
irrelevant (to me) meetings just for the sake of getting a credit, while
missing a more important and relevant topic somewhere else. Personally, I
believe that the time has come to merge the residual (and declining)
activity of 802.16 into a separate TG under another appropriate WG
(e.g.802.20) in order to straighten out some of these anomalies..
I'd be happy to review these topics at the 802 Exec level and would also
then be able to ask for full credit to be given / exchanged between
802.16 and 802.20 since there is an obvious overlap of interest and
participation. Some people might go further and ask for credits to be
given / exchanged between ANY 802 Wireless WG (e.g. 802.11, 15, 16, 18,
19, 20)and to have this built into the Electronic signin system (when it
works).
Regarding the facts and your insinuations for the week in question
:
a) On Monday I attended the full 802.16 Plenary (two hours) and hence
missed the 802.20 and 802.11/15/18/19/20 Joint Opening Plenaries. I then
attended the 802.18 working session (four hours) until they broke for
supper around 7 pm.
I had therefore signed in to 802.16 (using the TGe book) for the Plenary,
and later signed in to 802.18. This gives me a full credit for both
802.16 and 802.18. I spoke to the 802.20 chair and explained my
difficulty in registering for inaugural membership of 802.20 that week
and he agreed to give me credit for any 802.18 sessions. He would not
credit me for any 802.16 sessions because he said that you had previously
refused to grant credits to 802.20 SG/WG participants for 802.16
membership.
b) On Tuesday, I attended 802.18 all day and evening (three intervals)
and claimed credit for two of the corresponding 802.16 and three 802.20
intervals. Since interval times were not exactly aligned I was able to
slice some of my time covering my interests in the 802.16 TGd and TGe and
802.20 groups, but my "substantial" time was spent in
802.18.
c) On Wednesday, as it happened, there were no "relevant" TG16
sessions for me to attend, and I registered for one interval with 802.18
and one interval with 802.20. Again, I was able to spend my
"non-substantial" time keeping tabs on the "other"
meeting. The 802.18 interval is claimed as a credit for both 802.16 and
802.20.
d) On Thursday I had to attend a client meeting in Houston, but as it
happened there were no relevant 802.16 TG meetings, and in the evening I
had to choose the 802.20 Election meeting over the 802.16 Plenary.
So, I therefore scored five credits on 802.18 (71%) which was not enough
to gain "participation".
I scored Four out of "six" credits (75%) for 802.16 (incl two
and a half brought over from 802.18), plus one for Tuesday evening (which
was an 802.18 interval but not a 802.16 interval).
I scored Seven (not 8 as you say) credits for 802.20 (incl 5 brought over
from 802.18, plus Weds pm and Thurs evening) and therefore qualified for
their voting and inaugural membership.
One final comment, my registration with 802.18 quotes 802.16 as my
"home group", since at the start of Meeting #24 I was not
a member of 802.20 (no one else was either). Now that I have acquired
membership of 802.20 and still want to retain my membership of 802.16, at
least until TGd and TGe have finished, I will have to take similar
actions at future sessions. It should not have to be either / or and I
would urge you and whoever is the chair of 802.20 to iron out your turf
issues and make life simpler for us mere members by allowing a full
exchange of credits.
David