Well, if it can be of some use, I can give some history here, as I was around when the recoprocal rights were created.
A long time ago, some TAGs had attendance problems because people would not attend them in fear of losing their voting rights in their WG. To alleviate this and allow the interested people to atend the TAGs and not lose thier voting rights in their WG, reciprocal attendance credit was created. This allows a user to attend a TAG and log their attendance in their WG, such as to be able to participate in a TAG and maintain thier voting rights in their WG. Chairs determine the TAG pertinence to the their WG by deciding to allow for reciprocal attendance credits between said TAG and their WG. Now thats it for the historical reasons for the reciprocal attendance credits. After that, TAGS were eliminated and called working groups... so now, chairs can create reciprocal rights between and WGs.
In my opinion, "a" is the correct answer right now, although "b" is an interesting alternative which would greatly simplfy things, i.e. once you have acquired votingrights in one group, visiting another group with recpropcal voting rights would allow you to maintain your voting rights in the first group and would eliminate the "home group juggling" from one meeting to the next. It would not change things in the manner of what can be done, it would just simplify things by automating them rather than requiring the particiapnt to keep a record, session by session, of where to direct their reciprocal attendance and would simplify the software by removing confusing/cryptic questions. In any case, if one wants to mainting their voting rights in their home WG, they should concentrate their presence into a single WG during the entire week, thereby, the question asked at every single 2 hour period is annoying at best, outright confusing to newbies trying to use the attednance syste!
Just my 2 cents worth,
Ivan Reede, vice chair, 802.19
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Rosdahl
To: Stephens, Adrian P ; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of reciprocal credit "rule"
a) I believe the current operation is correct (i.e., visited + 1 home)
I think that the tool needs to be fixed in that the prompt is less than informative, and the instructions less than clear.
I will work to get a ticket in place, to fix it up, but our input to help with the final expected operation would be helpful.
I think that only a "voter" can make use of the reciprocal credit option, and it cannot be used to "gain" voting rights, but only to maintain them.
When Marking Attendance, a choice of which "home" group should be selectable, and if you are attending your home group, and you only want home credit, that should be an option (currently it is not).
FWIW,
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephens, Adrian P
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE..ORG
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:09 PM
Subject: [802SEC] Interpretation of reciprocal credit "rule"
Dear 802 EC,
As mentioned at the EC meeting today, there is a question of interpretation regarding reciprocal credit.
Although the answer may be buried somewhere in an EC motion or an IEEE-SA staff document before my
time, I cannot find anything in the rules/OM relating to this.
Definitions:
home group - a group in which a user has voting rights
visited group - a group that a user attends, which is granted reciprocal credit by the home group
A voter visits a group and records attendance. The question is simple.
Should the voter get attendance at:
a) One of the home group and the visited group
b) Both of the home group and the visited group (current)
And if the voter has multiple home groups should the voter get attendance credit:
a) One of the home group and visited groups
b) The visited group and one of the home groups (current)
c) The visited group and all of the home groups
Current behaviour (modulo a few UI infelicities) is highlighted.
I initially took this to be a bug, because I laboured under the mistaken assumption that
attendance credit should not multiply unnecessarily. (Stephens' razor).
I'd like to get feedback on how you think the system should behave. Once I get this, I'll
document this behaviour, and if necessary work with Jon to raise a ticket to change it.
Just to help provide rapid feedback, I have some stock responses prepared below:
a) I believe the current operation is correct (i.e., visited + 1 home)
b) I believe single attendance credit is correct (i.e., visited or home)
c) I don't do reciprocal credit, I have no opinion
d) I don't care, I have no opinion
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404 825
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900
Tel: +1 (408) 239 7485
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
!DSPAM:514d2e5138661446669480! ---------- 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.