Re: [802SEC] Question on Attendance Credit
Mike,
Thanks.
On another note, you mentioned that people have to have their
affiliations letters in tonight. That seems reasonable for the majority
of people. However, what if someone decides to attend at the last
minute and register at the door? We always like to have people register
in advance but still some people decide last minute to attend. We
charge them more for registration but we still let them attend. If
letters of affiliation are required a week in advance then that prevents
someone from making a last minute decision to attend.
So, in general I think everyone who knows they are going to
attend should make every effort to send in their affiliation letters in
advance. However, I think if we require it for 802.20 a week in advance
then we in essence disallow anyone to register for 802.20 at the door.
And, of course if this rule is extended to all working groups then we
can eliminate walk up registration.
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 10:06 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.