Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Question on Attendance Credit



Mike

	Thanks for the clarification.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Takefman (tak) [mailto:tak@cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 12:06 PM
To: Shellhammer, Steve; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Question on Attendance Credit

Steve, 

This is my opinion only, but I did state that new attendees,
and attendees without voting rights can register and gain
attendance credit if they provide affiliation at the session.
What I did say, was if someone is already a member, then they 
should be on the .20 reflector and then they had a requirement to 
get the affiliation data into Mat. I believe that this is based 
on a directive that the SASB sent down to us. If they have failed
to do that, I don't know that they deserve to get attendance
credit.

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: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com] 
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 1:35 PM
> To: Mike Takefman (tak); STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: 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.