Sorry if this is a neophyte/already covered question… But, do we have a definition of “in-person” somewhere. I recall during the EC opening plenary that someone (John D?) mentioned being here at the venue hotel, but calling in from their room (or something similar). I assume that should still qualify, as “in-person”. But, how do we police/monitor this? Anyone can click the box saying “In person” during their registration, with no negative effects, I believe (no change in fees, etc.). So, how do we keep individuals from just saying they are “in person” but in fact are _not_ here at the venue, versus those who are “here” but can’t make it to the meeting room…?
Thanks. Mark
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> On Behalf Of Steve Shellhammer
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March, 2024 9:19
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed rule change for in person attendance requirement.
Hi George,
I explained that to the WG, so they understood that point.
Regards,
Steve
From: George Zimmerman <george@cmephyconsulting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 8:16 AM
To: Steve Shellhammer <sshellha@QTI.QUALCOMM.COM>; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: Proposed rule change for in person attendance requirement.
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
We took care of grandfathering in the text defining in-person attendance. Anything prior to march 31 (virtual or in-person) counts as in-person.
4.1 Attendance at Meetings, insert at end of section:
“In-person Credited Attendance is Credited Attendance for an on-site individual at the meeting venue, and Credited Attendance earned prior to March 31, 2024 shall be the same as In-person Credited Attendance.”
“In-person Session Attendance Credit is Session Attendance Credit consisting entirely of In-person Credited Attendance, and Session Attendance Credit earned prior to March 31, 2024 shall count as In-person Credited Attendance for the purpose of establishing or retaining membership.”
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
310-920-3860
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> On Behalf Of Steve Shellhammer
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 9:13 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed rule change for in person attendance requirement.
Hi James and George,
We also discussed this topic in 802.19.
Concerns were raised about the timing since there is an ongoing contraction in Tech market.
It was suggested we do a straw poll and share the results with you.
Below are the straw poll results.
Regards,
Steve
-----------------
Straw Poll
What is the earliest this rule should become effectively?
- Never: 5
- March 2024: 1
- July 2024: 5
- March 2025: 4
- After March 2025, based on Data: 5
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> on behalf of Chad Jones (cmjones) <00000b60b3f54e8d-dmarc-request@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 8:06 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed rule change for in person attendance requirement.
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
Ben does acknowledge one hole in the proposal (that I don’t think I’ve seen covered). Do we have a rule in place about grandfathering? It will be a limited case, but I suspect there will be some who are in process of gaining voting rights. That means that this Plenary (or the Jan Interim) was their first meeting that counts toward voting rights. They need another Plenary to gain voting rights. Would this second one be required to be in person? I would advocate that we grant voting rights based on the CURRENT rules while also starting the clock on required in person attendance to maintain these rights. This would mean that if they attend the July Plenary virtually, they will gain voting rights. But if they do not attend at least two in person by July ’25, they would lose those rights.
Regards,
Chad Jones
Principal Engineer, Cisco Systems
Executive Secretary, IEEE 802.3 Working Group
Chair, IEEE P802.3da Task Force
Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> on behalf of George Zimmerman <george@CMEPHYCONSULTING.COM>
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 8:55 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed rule change for in person attendance requirement.
Ben - I believe your understanding is the same as mine regarding the in-person part, and I believe the May meeting counts to substitute for the July plenary– so even in the worst-case, assuming we apply the new rule after this meeting, the individual would have credit for this meeting (virtual), which would be treated as credited, under the ‘grandfathering’ and would have an in-person credited attendance for May. So virtual attendance in July would allow claiming the voting rights.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
310-920-3860
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> On Behalf Of Benjamin Rolfe
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 8:42 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Proposed rule change for in person attendance requirement.
A question arose this morning regarding the proposed change. I think I know the answer but would appreciate verification/denial.
Someone attends this week virtually. Still counts because the current rules say it's credited attendance.
They attend the May wireless interim (or any other credited interim) in person. Thus they are eligible to become a WG voter at the start of the July plenary. Do they need to attend July in person?
From my reading we have not added "in person" requirement for July in this scenario.
Additional comment: in the summary slides someone put something suggesting attending 1.5 meetings per year in person was what is required. While I thought that was clear Sunday, quite a few people became confused, thinking this was saying attending 50% of a meeting had value. We should take that off the slide. THe part that says 2 one year and 1 the next is sufficient and not wrong.
FWIW
Ben
Benjamin A. Rolfe
Blind Creek Associates
+1 408 332 0725 (Mobile)
+1 408 395 7207 (Office)
Virus-free.www.avast.com |
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1