Tony
Adrian,
Thanks. That figure is worth a thousand email replies.
Basically, someone losing "2 of 4" status would be dropped from the Voter category in one of two distinct conditions:
(a) has participated in 0 of 4
(b) has participated in 1 of 4
It seems that 802.11 practice is to categorize someone in either condition into the state "0 of 4". The problem here is with case (b). An individual who has participated in 1 of 4 sessions is treated as if she had participated in 0 of 4. Essentially, 802.11 erases her remaining valid session participation credit. I don't know why, but, as far as I can tell, this is some kind of penalty for having lost her membership. Then, when she later turns up at a plenary, having validly participated in 2 of 4 per the rules, she is denied membership. This contradicts her rights under the rules ("membership in a WG is established by achieving participation credit at the sessions of the WG for two out of the last four plenary sessions; one duly constituted recent interim ...").
I don't see anything in the rules that allows the WG to strip a participant of validly earned participation credit and deny membership on those grounds. That's why I think that membership would be granted on appeal.
Roger22 February 2014 12:56 AMThat is exactly what we’re talking about, Roger.
(we use the following terms in 802.11: non-voter, aspirant, potential-voter, voter).
I claim the rules are ambiguous because intelligent people read them differently. As a result, groups are operating
different rules. We may want to clarify the rules to common interpretation, which would require the minority groups
to change their mode of operation. Or we might clarify that either interpretation is valid, which would deny the ability
to appeal on the basis of “not following the rules”.
We use the following state machine in 802.11 to determine voter status:
This discussion is arguing about the leftmost transition. In the “soft landing” interpretation, the
attended “<2 of 4” should be removed and replaced by a transition from voter to aspirant based
on “attended 1 of 4”, and a transition from voter to non-voter based on “attended 0 of 4”.
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
From: Roger Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: 22 February 2014 07:23
To: Stephens, Adrian P
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules
Adrian,
I have only a vague understanding of your terms "aspirant" or "observer". I suppose that, by "voter", you are referring to "member". The term "voter" is not in the WG P&P.
As I understand, you are suggesting that an individual who has met all the conditions of membership (including two sessions, per 7.2.1, and including all registration and letter ballot requirements) would be denied membership on grounds of having recently lost membership. I don't see any support for such denial in the rules. I suspect that such an individual would be granted membership on appeal.
Roger
22 February 2014 12:23 AMAdrian,
I have only a vague understanding of your terms "aspirant" or "observer". I suppose that, by "voter", you are referring to "member". The term "voter" is not in the WG P&P.
As I understand, you are suggesting that an individual who has met all the conditions of membership (including two sessions, per 7.2.1, and including all registration and letter ballot requirements) would be denied membership on grounds of having recently lost membership. I don't see any support for such denial in the rules. I suspect that such an individual would be granted membership on appeal.
Roger21 February 2014 11:51 PMHello Roger,
To clarify, you are assuming the “soft landing” position. In this the member transitions from voter to aspirant, rather than voter to observer.
On the “non ambiguity” front, a rule is IMHO ambiguous if apparently competent people come up with a different interpretation of that rule. Of course, individuals may declare
the rule to be non-ambiguous, and their interpretation to be correct :0).
Tony and myself read the rules to mean a “hard landing” (voter -> observer). So far the other respondents have read the rules to mean a soft landing. Does anybody else use the “hard landing” interpretation?
I must admit I didn’t previously give it a lot of thought, but I think there is merit in the soft landing approach.
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Office: +44 (1793) 404 825
Mobile: +44 (7920) 084900
USA Mobile: +1 (408) 239 7485
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
From: Roger Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Stephens, Adrian P
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules
Adrian,
As I understand, you are discussing membership retention and loss based only on participation. In other words, your question presumes that the individual has met all other obligations (balloting, fees, ...). I'll share my views based on that understanding.
Subclause 7.2.1 states the conditions for establishing membership. An individual who meets those conditions has a right to be granted membership. The rules do not provide for WG officials to override the individual's membership rights; for example, by declaring that some session participation will be ignored on the grounds that the individual has recently lost membership.
I don't see any ambiguity on this in the rules.
Regards,
Roger
21 February 2014 02:53 PMAdrian,
As I understand, you are discussing membership retention and loss based only on participation. In other words, your question presumes that the individual has met all other obligations (balloting, fees, ...). I'll share my views based on that understanding.
Subclause 7.2.1 states the conditions for establishing membership. An individual who meets those conditions has a right to be granted membership. The rules do not provide for WG officials to override the individual's membership rights; for example, by declaring that some session participation will be ignored on the grounds that the individual has recently lost membership.
I don't see any ambiguity on this in the rules.
Regards,
Roger21 February 2014 12:34 AM---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.Dear SEC,
If you are responsible for maintaining voting status for your WG, please respond to the
question at the end of this email.
A query by an 802.11 member causes me to question how I’ve interpreted the WG P&P regarding
loss of membership through non-attendance.
The WG P&P State: (my highlight)
7.2.2. Retention
Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four plenary sessions. One duly
constituted interim WG or task group session may be substituted for one of the two plenary
sessions.
7.2.3. Loss
Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two of the last three WG letter
ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention for other than “lack of technical
expertise.” This rule may be excused by the WG Chair if the individual is otherwise an active
participant. If lost per this subclause, membership is re-established as if the person were a new
candidate member.
It describes how to retain membership by participation, but does not state what happens
if the member fails to maintain membership. In the case of failure to return ballots, it is
explicit that the member is reset as though a new member.
So, the rules are ambiguous. You could interpolate a rule similar to the highlighted case
for non-attendance (which I have unconsciously done in 802.11). In doing so, I am following
previous 802.11 vice chairs’ interpretation.
We have a member with the following attendances
03 2013 - No (plenary)
05 2013 - No (interim)
07 2013 - Yes (plenary)
09 2013 - No (interim)
11 2013 - No (plenary) (loses voting rights)
01 2013 - Yes (interim)
03 2013 - Yes (plenary)
According to the “everything reset” interpretation, the member is an aspirant at the
start of march. According to the “2 in last 4 plenaries, regardless of loss of voting rights in this period”
interpretation, he is a potential voter.
The implication of the “does not reset” interpretation is that a member never transitions to non-member
directly, but always transitions first to aspirant. And then later transitions to non-member.
IMHO, your working groups must be operating one of the following two rules:
1. Resets to non-member, loses previous attendances
2. Reverts to aspirant, keeps previous attendances for future gain to voting member.
Please let me know of these rule you are operating. If it turns out we’re all doing the same thing, we should
put that in the WG P&P.
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)
----------------------------------------------
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.
