| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Folks, First, thanks to Tony, Pat, Roger, and for very helpful comments. Based on these comments, I'm no suggesting the following as a starting point for the ballot: Replace: Membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention other than "lack of technical expertise." This rule may be excused by the Working Group Chair if the individual is otherwise an active participant. Membership is also lost if a person fails to attend one plenary and at least one other plenary or duly constituted interim session within any 365 day period. Membership may be re-established as if the person were a new candidate member, but attendance prior to loss of membership does not count towards regaining membership. (See subclause 7.2.3.1 Establishment). With: Membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention other than "lack of technical expertise." This rule may be excused by the Working Group Chair if the individual is otherwise an active participant. Membership may be re-established as if the person were a new candidate member, but attendance prior to loss of membership does not count towards regaining membership in this case. (See subclause 7.2.3.1 Establishment). Membership is also lost if a person fails to attend one plenary and at least one other plenary or duly constituted interim session within the span of the three most recent plenary sessions. Loss of membership through lack of attendance is determined at the end of each Plenary session. Again, the goal here is to set scope, and not necessarily agree a final text. Hopefully everyone can live with this text as a starting point for the ballot. If not, let me know. Thanks, Mat Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. Senior Member Technical Staff BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR Office: +1 973.633.6344 email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 12:16 AM To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed P&P Revision ballot on 'WG Membership and Meetings' I agree with Matt on loss of attendance for not balloting. The intent of the rule may be to void all previous credits, but the language reads otherwise, in my view. It says "Membership may be re-established as if the person were a new candidate member." A new candidate member who shows up having attended two out of the last four Plenary sessions is immediately awarded membership. Roger At 10:34 -0700 2005-03-16, Pat Thaler wrote: >What Tony says is how I applied the rule in the past. Non-response >to ballots is a serious matter that removes the current attendence >credit and they start building membership from that point. This is >similar to the rules that apply to non-payment of registration fees. > >Pat > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org >[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Tony >Jeffree >Sent: Wednesday, 16 March, 2005 7:05 AM >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed P&P Revision ballot on 'WG Membership >and Meetings' > >At 04:56 16/03/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote: > >>Regarding the last part, the following pathological situation >>exists in the rules today. I don't return 2 out of 3 ballots, so I >>loss my membership. But I attend all the meetings. So if I show >>up at the next plenary, I automatically regain my membership. This >>seems counter the intent of the rule, so I've explicitly stated >>that loss of membership results in prior attendance being >>discounted. >> >> > >Mat - > >Actually that case *does not* exist in the rules today, because they >currently state that "Membership may be re-established as if the >person were a new candidate member" in this case (i.e., you re-start >building credit from scratch). > >Making loss of prior attendance credit a blanket rule for all >membership loss situations means that if someone shows up after a >period of absence of a bit less than a year (intending to regularly >attend again), you can get the crazy situation where they manage to >attend a meeting just inside a year from their last attendance, but >their membership is lost say 1 month later, and even though they >attend the very next session, they lose the previous session's >attendance credit. > >That is totally nuts, and if the wording stays that way, I will vote >against the change, and that is a case that I will absolutely not >apply in 802.1. > >So I believe that you should revert to the previous formulation, >where loss of prior attendance credit only applies where you lose >membership through failure to meet your obligations as a member >(paying your meeting dues, and responding to ballots) - in other >words, it is applied as a punitive measure for miscreants. > >I believe the fix here is to move the sentence "Membership is also >lost...365 day period" to the end of the paragraph, and add a >sentence indicating that any membership credit that falls within the >365-day period is retained in this case. > >I would also suggest that instead of 365 days, we use "the span of >the three most recent plenary sessions" as the time period, and make >it clear that the this rule is applied at the end of each Plenary >session, thus reducing the time to age out non-participants to 8 >months rather than 12. > >Regards, >Tony >---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email >reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. > >---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email >reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
802.0-WG_Membership_&_Meetings-Proposed_P&P_Revision_ballot_r2.doc