Re: [802SEC] Question on Attendance Credit
Steve-
A last minute decision to show up at the door without a previous
affiliation declaration does not prevent attendance.
It prevents:
Voting
Attendance credit
(I personally would be in favor of allowing new attendees to declare
affiliation at the door, then they could get attendance credit but not
voting, but then a new attendee shouldn't have a vote any way.)
Geoff
At 10:34 AM 11/3/2006 , Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.