Re: [802SEC] 802 Chair's Guidelines updated revision: 1.9.3
John,
It is quite a while ago, but I think that this provision was put in either just after or shortly before we had the Enskede meeting because we didn't want to handle it as a special case each time the subject of students came up. The $100 was suppose to cover the incremental cost of the students attending. Hotel food costs have gone up significantly since that time so it probably doesn't today.
It was intended to cover local students attending a meeting to see what a standards meeting is like and to sample the emerging work we are doing. Along the lines of what Bob said, the assumption is that any student attending more frequently is doing so as part of the student's research and registration fees would be covered by the sponsor of the students work.
10 keeps the number small enough that we don't have to worry about impact of extra bodies in any given meeting room and we don't need to monitor distribution of the student interest amongst the meeting rooms. But the number of active WGs and the typical 802 meeting attendance was smaller then too. If we were turning down students based on the number, we could consider increasing it but I think we would also need to look at the cost impact. Since that hasn't been happening, we can leave it at 10.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:33 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802 Chair's Guidelines updated revision: 1.9.3
John:
The student fee is used occasionally, I've seen it both as Treasurer and WG Chair. The one time use (now extendable via fee waiver) is there to support student awareness of our work but I assume to exclude use of contract students (typically graduate students) as employee surrogates at a discounted rate. Both fee waiver and student discount registration attendance does not count toward WG membership (per the P&P), and some identification of those individuals is appropriate to implement this requirement, but I personally don't remember why we wanted badge identification of students.
BTW, the $200 of expenses and the answers to your questions are defined in the P&P (or draft LMSC Ops Manual) and need not be expanded on in the guidelines.
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:06 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802 Chair's Guidelines updated revision: 1.9.3
Paul,
You did not address the following comments that I had made. In case they
were not clear enough, I have augmented most of them to better explain
what I don't understand or why I think an item should be changed. I
would appreciate at least a comment as to why they are not adopted so
that I may understand the rationale.
2.1: My understanding is that maintenance PARs do not require the 30-day
notice mentioned in tablenote 3. Maybe this tablenote should be change
as "Requires 30 day draft submission to EC, except for maintenance PARs."
2.1: Why is there no tablenote 1? Did it once exist and get removed.
Should it exist, and is missing?
2.2: Is this ever used? I never heard of this before. Just curious, but
I really would like to know if this has ever been used, or if this
section is entirely hypothetical.
2.2.3.b: Why limit this to once? Or, as you have adjusted the text,
require an EC waiver for more than once? As long as the student is still
a student, and presumably doing some useful work in an 802-related area,
and not getting attendance/membership/voting credits, then why not allow
them to come for several meetings?
2.2.7: Why limit this to 10? What if there were 2 attending .1, 2
attending .3, 2 attending .11, 2 attending .15, 2 attending .16, and 2
attending .21?
2.3.5: Why a firm limit of 10? I agree that we certainly don't need to
encourage so many. But I see no reason to state a fixed a priori limit.
2.6: (You really shouldn't have two numbered lists in one section.
Perhaps a subsection numbering should be used here to divide the two
lists into separate sections. I.e., divide 2.6 into 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. I
know that this ridiculously picky, but I can't help but point it out.)
2.6.3: What is "the chair's $200 allocation"? Am I allowed to spend $200
at every meeting? If so, are there any limits on what it can be spent?
2.12.4: Why are these "Suggested"? Are there alternative URLs that one
might use instead?
Thanks,
jl
On 8/26/2008 12:28 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> Dear EC members,
>
> Attached is an updated revision (rev 1.9.3 with revison marks on) of
> the Chair's Guidelines to incorporate the comments from John Lemon,
> Bob Grow and Geoff Thompson (thanks for the input, gentlemen).
>
> As I stated last Wednesday, barring any objections (that include
> constructive criticism with requests for specific changes), I will
> replace the revision 1.8 Guideline with the revision 1.9.3 Guideline
> on Saturday 6SEP2008.
>
> Regards,
>
> --Paul
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Nikolich"
> <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:11 PM
> Subject: [802SEC] 802 Chair's Guidelinesrevision 1.9
>
>
>> With the correct attachment this time.
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Nikolich"
>> <paul.nikolich@att.net>
>> To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:40 PM
>> Subject: 802 Chair's Guidelinesrevision 1.9
>>
>>
>>> Dear EC members,
>>>
>>> Attached is revision 1.9 of the 802 Chair's Guidelines. This is a long
>>> overdue action item on my part. Other than several editorial
>>> changes, the
>>> main changes are the addition of items 2.11 and 2.12.
>>>
>>> 2.11 Chair's guidelines regarding cross WG and TAG document and E-mail
>>> reflector access.
>>> 2.12 Chair's guidelines regarding Patent Policy announcement
>>> instructions.
>>>
>>> In order to make the editorial changes obvious, I left revision
>>> marks on
>>> for
>>> everything except the 2.11 and 2.12 additions and format changes.
>>>
>>> Barring any objections (that include constructive criticism with
>>> requests
>>> for specific changes), I will replace the revision 1.8 Guideline
>>> with the
>>> revision 1.9 Guideline on Saturday 6SEP2008.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> --Paul
>>>
>>
>> ----------
>> 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.