| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
How do you
measure that contact informatino is valid? . On 2/24/2014 3:49 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
Actually, there is another obligation in the IEEE 802.3 rules (from the IEEE 802.3 Operating Rules) that should be considered for adding to the IEEE 802 WG P&P. "To establish and retain voting rights participants must record and maintain valid contact information in the WG database. All acknowledgements and information required by the IEEE Standards Association (e.g., Employer and Affiliation) shall also be provided and current." That was instituted partly because our industry can be very dynamic at times. There were times when we were trying to close letter ballots and would find that quite a few on the voting tail (i.e. who had stopped attending but were still voters) had contact numbers that would bounce. And once we started using reflectors, emails would bounce. That would make it hard to close ballots (and the return threshold use to be 75% instead of 50%). I don't recall when we started enforcing that in IEEE 802.3 but it has been for quite a long time. I think that it's a reasonable and good rule, and, AFAIK, no one has ever contested it (at least they haven't gone beyond asking why they weren't on the voter list). As a rule in to OR that goes beyond the rules on retention in the WG P&P, I'm not sure how it would fair if someone appealed it. Regards, Pat -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:27 PM To: Pat Thaler Cc: Geoff Thompson; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll: working practice for voting status Pat- Sounds like it could be right. I might well have instituted that policy to make the things more regularized vs. having to manage random pieces of paper accumulated in my pocket over the week. You point about heavy nudging to get folks to attend a plenary is also true. Geoff On Feb 24, 2014, at 3:20 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:Hi Geoff, The part about "the only time" is something that came in more recently. When I was chair, someone could speak up during the part of the opening and closing plenary when I showed the list or they give me a note (on paper or email as email wasn't as entrenched back then) at any time indicating that they wanted to be a voter. It was later that 802.3 instituted became the only time one could declare intent to become a voter was by being physically present during the agenda slot for it in the opening and closing plenary. IIRC, that was instituted partly based on wanting to make it clear that voters have a responsibility to the whole work of IEEE 802.3 and should therefore be present for at least one of the plenary meetings during the week. Regards, Pat -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:19 PM To: Pat Thaler Cc: Geoff Thompson; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll: working practice for voting status Pat- The system that we have in dot 3 does date from Loughry days as far as I can recall. For the rest of you on the list, the system is that a list of "Potential Voters" is prepared for each plenary meeting. It is a standard part of the Monday and Thursday Plenary agenda that those on the list can ask to become voters. That is the only time in the normal dot 3 process that voters are added to the list. (Two other lists are shown during this agenda item, - the current revision of the VOTER list - the "Voters in Peril" list, i.e. those who will cease to be voters if they don't have full attendance at the plenary ) It may be true that in earlier times the list wasn't opened during the closing plenary. I would have to do some research to determine that and it doesn't seem material to the current discussion. Regards, Geoff On Feb 24, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:To make sure it is clear, the difference for IEEE 802.3 and IEEE 802.1 from A is not in what meetings count for attendance. It is that both groups exercise an option that is documented in 7.2.1 of the WG P&P "A declaration of intent to the Chair of the WG may also be required in a WG to gain membership." In the context of Adrian's flow chart, the transition to voter (or to potential voter) requires an additional condition of "has declared intent as required by the WG". Since membership confers obligation (to vote) as well as privileges, it seems reasonable to have a participant affirm that they were willing to be a voter before they became a voter. So at least since I was chair, IEEE 802.3 has required that - I can't recall whether Don Loughry did. Regards, Pat -----Original Message----- From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org ] On Behalf Of Law, David Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 9:45 AM To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll: working practice for voting status Hi Adrian, IEEE 802.3 operates in the same way as IEEE 802.1 described below. Best regards, David ----- From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org ] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree Sent: 24 February 2014 17:25 To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll: working practice for voting status Adrian - C. But actually closely similar to your A: "Soft Landing", as follows: 802.1 requires aspiring voters to affirm their intention to become a voter, rather than automagically becoming a voter when their attendance hits the right threshold. So, if a participant loses voting membership through lack of attendance, they transition to what you call "observer" status, requiring them to reaffirm their intent to become a voter before they can actually become a voter again. However, it is still a "soft landing" in that previous credits are still valid if they do in fact reaffirm their intent. Similarly, new attendees aren't penalised if they don't immediately affirm their intent to become voters; at the point where they decide that they want to be a voter, any accumulated credit up to that point still counts. By the way, I suspect your terminology (observer, aspirant, etc.) may confuse the issue, as it is terminology that was invented by the developers of Imat rather than terminology that exists in our rules. ----- Regards, Tony On 24 February 2014 15:29, Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@att.net> wrote: Dear EC members, In an effort to help Adrian collect the information he's looking for on the current working practice for 802 groups I am conducting a straw poll as defined below. Adrian, I delegate the data collection and result report of this straw poll to you. Thank you. Regards, --Paul The purpose of this poll is to determine current working practice for 802 working groups and TAGs. Eligible to respond: the chairs of all non-hibernating 802 working groups and TAGs or their designee Duration of poll: 10 days. If all response are received before then, the poll will be closed early. Definitions: 1. Loss of voting status on non-attendance means that the member fails to attend 2 of the last 4 plenaries, one of which may be substituted by an interim. 2. "Soft landing" means that the member keeps their previous attendances. This results in the member transition to aspirant or observer status depending on whether they have a previous attendance in the last 4 plenaries (modulo interim substitution rule). 3. "Hard landing" means that the member loses credit for their previous attendances. They necessarily return to observer status. Poll: Does your working group operate "soft landing" or "hard landing" rules for loss of voting status based on non-attendance. A: "Soft Landing" B: "Hard Landing" C: "Something else not covered by these definitions" ---------- 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. ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. |