Re: [802SEC] Question on Attendance Credit
Steve,
To me there is no doubt that they are having a session, but I recall
hearing a statement on
another conference call as to whether there was a 30 day requirement.
Since
I think this is the sort of thing that can come up, and would result in
yet
another set of appeals, I was thinking of getting us ahead of the curve.
cheers,
mike
-------------------------------------------
Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 11:47 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Question on Attendance Credit
>
> Mike and Paul,
>
> If there is still doubt whether 802.20 is holding an
> official meeting in 10 days then I think something must have
> gone badly wrong.
> Paul Nikolich notified the EC and the 802.20 members that
> there was going to be a meeting. People have made travel
> plans. Now is not the time to change that decision.
>
> You seem to imply that the EC can declare the meeting
> official but Paul cannot. That is not clear to me.
>
> Paul, can you give the EC guidance on if an EC vote on
> whether this is an "official" meeting is appropriate? I
> believe many people have made travel plans based on your
> statement that 802.20 would meet. I believe most people
> interpreted that to mean that the working group would have an
> official meeting, since I cannot think of any other interpretation.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mike Takefman (tak)
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 7:10 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] Question on Attendance Credit
>
> Dear EC,
>
> In discussions with Arnie and Paul a few questions came up
> that I think we need to make some decisions on since it is
> possible that they will be brought up at the session. Paul
> can determine if this is a question for the unconflicted EC
> or the entire EC.
>
>
> 1) Is the November 802.20 session duly constituted? According
> to our rules,
> interim sessions require 30 days notice, not plenaries.
> The only catch is
> that the notice of the lifting of suspension of 802.20 did
> not occur 30days
> prior to November, although the stated goal of the SASB
> was to restart ASAP.
> Plenaries are well known and the expectation of people
> *should* have been that
> this session would occur.
>
> That being said, I think the EC should affirm that this
> session is like
> any other duly constituted session.
>
> 2) Should the EC determine the session is not duly constituted then
> I can imagine questions from attendees related to:
> a) attendance credit for membership (does this session count)
> b) gaining of voting rights (there was a large contingent
> of people that
> Mr. Upton said would become voting members at this
> session. If this
> is not considered a duly constituted plenary then they
> don't get a chance
> for voting rights until March
> c) voting at the meeting, if this isn't a duly constituted
> meeting, is it
> the equivalent of a Study Group meeting, where all
> attendees vote?
>
> 3) Matt Sherman has sent email to the dot20 reflector,
> stating that they needed
> to get their affiliation statements in by tonight in order
> to participate.
> Will we allow anyone who attends the meeting to sign a
> form there? If so,
> do they get to participate fully? I can imagine 2 classes
> of people:
> a) People who have already attended meetings, and should
> be on the reflector.
> b) People who for some reason are attending for the first
> time ever and
> therefore would not necessarily be part of the reflector.
>
> If someone can think of other questions that are likely to
> come up, please chime in.
>
> Having posed the questions, let me start with my answers to
> start the discussion.
>
> 1) This is a valid session, the stakeholders of this process
> should be ready to
> go once the SASB removed the suspension.
>
> 2) I believe the normal rules for attendance credit, gaining
> voting rights and voting
> at the session apply.
>
> Arnie is free of course as chair to ask questions twice.
> Once to the membership
> and once to the entire room. However, I think that anyone
> who wishes to be part of
> a straw poll has to have filled out a declaration of affiliation.
> This brings us
> to point 3
>
> 3) Anyone who is a current attendee of dot20 (is a member, or
> about to become a member)
> and did not send in a form, does not get to vote this
> session. If they fill out a form
> this session, they can be in straw polls.
>
> Anyone who is a new attendee, or cannot become a member
> can fill out a declaration form
> and be part of straw polls.
>
> I assume the following motions (or something like it) would be made
>
> "Move to confirm that the 802.20 Plenary Session is duly constituted"
>
> "Move to restrict voting at the 802.20 Plenary Session to
> 802.20 voting members who completely fulfilled the
> affiliation declaration requirement on time"
>
> cheers,
>
> mike
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
> Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> 3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
>
> ----------
> 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.