RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
Bob,
I'm also concerned that David's proposal is not consistant with the intent of the voting rules. The rationale for attendance requirements is that one wants knowledgeable voters who are familiar with the issues as voters. One could have made the same kind of overlap of interest argument for the original wired groups (.3, .4 and .5) that David makes for wireless. However, each group had its own large body of work and its own issues to resolve. One couldn't effectively cover all of them at the same time.
There is opportunity for cross-group feedback in a number of ways. For instance, any SA member can be a voter at sponsor ballot. Observers can also submit comments at working group ballot. If necessary, action should be taken to ensure that passwords for drafts are available to any 802 member - there was some recent discussion of the tightness with which drafts were controlled and I think the problem was fixed. If not, it should be.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:31 PM
To: Bob O'Hara; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
David, I have one particular burning concern about your proposal. Since
there is always some potential overlap of application space between the
different work groups, it could well be in the interests of those in 802.x
to try to stall the work of 802.y, for fear of losing market to this
potentially competing technology.
Although the above is a hypothetical situation, it is certainly a possible
one that should be carefully thought through before we grant everyone voting
rights.
Note, that lack of voting rights in no way restricts participation in
development of the draft, nor does it restrict the commenting on drafts sent
out for WG votes. It has been my experience that the working groups aim to
carefully evaluate ALL comments made against the drafts and seriously
consider them whether or not the commenter is a voting member of the WG. Of
course everyone in 802 can become a participating member of any of the 802
WG reflectors, by simply indicating a desire to do so. At worst, going to a
single meeting is enough to get the passwords necessary to get into the
"members only" areas.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob O'Hara" <bob@airespace.com>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
>
> Forwarded for a non-subscriber.
>
> -Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "David Trinkwon" <trinkwon@compuserve.com>
> To: <carlstevenson@agere.com>, "Klerer Mark" <M.Klerer@flarion.com>,
> <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>, <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
> Cc: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:57:37 +0100
>
>
> 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
>
>
>