| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Pat, Jonathan: That slide 13 example looks more like the detail that has been gathered during dominance investigations in which I’ve been involved. When I Chaired the dominance ad hoc more than a few years ago, the prototype sign-in sheet developed with IEEE-SA counsel did not have the ultimate parent entity (UPE) columns, but UPE columns were added for WGs where attempts to dominate were alleged. As reinforcement for not requiring UPE with normal sign-in, IMAT and myProject do not include provision of UPE information. Request for website URL was also to aid in investigation of alleged attempt to dominate. As I recall, at the time of the dominance ad hoc, it was also strongly recommended by counsel, that text defining affiliation be included on each page of the meeting sign-in sheet. When recently looking at minutes of various groups, I noted a number have a single column for Employer/Affiliation. For those groups’ minutes that I pulled up, those with this type of single column, were much more likely to only have one response. That may be something Jonathan might want to put more emphasis on (gets a little lost after early slides (e.g., 5 and 6), if we want to reinforce that affiliation(s) may include more than Employer. I personally think it is something some 802 subgroups could improve. Indirectly related is the limitation of IMAT that remains a personal pet peeve. IMAT is not an attendance tool as currently coded, it is an attendance credit tool. If I claim attendance for one group (to get my attendance credit), I cannot record attendance in another group with a time overlap. I’m sure we are all aware of seeing cases where people in the room swells just before a vote, we may even have seen vote counts exceed the total attendees listed in the minutes as a result of the assumed electronic call to like-minded colleagues to come and vote. The only relevance to the presentation perhaps is that IMAT does not necessarily meet the transparency requirements of IEEE-SA rules for disclosure of affiliation (something not covered by the presentation). On slides 7-8, it is my recollection that IEEE-SA has taken the position that faithful, complete, and accurate declaration of affiliation is a condition of indemnification. (I know indemnification is a hot button for other reasons.) On slide 13, I have an issue with content, highlighted by the note, but I’m not sure it is wrong versus the rules. I thought the declaration of affiliation was expected for more than activities with approved PARs. This includes pre-PAR activities whether study group or ICAID, and certainly extends to sponsor meetings and governance as well. —Bob ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. |