| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
James,
Good points, thanks.
I think that the proposed change has been well crafted to create as little risk of negative consequences as possible
and appreciate the efforts of all who have contributed. I am sympathetic to the motivations. I am still not convinced we have a problem at this time that needs this change.
I agree enthusiastically with your view that voting should be a last resort in the consensus process.
As a participant and TG leader I encourage collaboration instead of down-selection. Not everyone agrees with you and I on this point and the reality is different groups have different degrees to which "voting" matters. There is also a perception that "full
participation" is achieved only with full voting membership. Anecdotally, I have heard that some people's sponsors see voting rights as a meaningful and
necessary condition of supporting continued participation. Some have stated that mandating in-person will help them convince their sponsors to fund in-person attendance. I have no idea which group is larger - we don't know. This is an example of something
I think we need to know before we make this change.
There is another perception that lowering the barrier for "full participation" as we have done since 2020 is a good thing. It presents 802 as "more open" than it was pre-2020. This is not all bad. Especially those affiliated with smaller entities. I see value
in this positive perception of openness. It was repeatedly stated that this simply "goes back" to what we had before. Is going back really the best foundation for moving forward?
I strongly advocate for in-person attendance as way, way better than not being in-person. I share this opinion often and with enthusiasm. As I said Sunday evening and Monday morning, I am all for doing whatever we can think up to help others understand this
(including those people making budget decisions). That in-person is better all around is not the discussion. As I see it we have gained some positive things with the lower barrier to full entry, and should not give those gains up without being sure the win
is worth the loss.
FWIW
Ben
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> on behalf of James P. K. Gilb <000008e8b69871c2-dmarc-request@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 9:01 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 would point out that "some (useful) attendees who must be remote" are protected in two ways with the rules change. 1) The change to the rules does not change how an remote attendee can participate in the standards development, with the exception of voting, making motions or seconding motions. 2) The ability of the Chair to declare their attendance to be "In-Person" if there is a need for voting rights. As we strive for consensus, it is common that our work is done by acclamation/lack of dissent. Voting is really our last resort in resolving issues. James Gilb On 3/12/24 08:54, Benjamin Rolfe wrote: > True. > We can handle it the "easy" way by suspending rules again if a similar situation arises. Which I personally think is not a good way. I think that instead we should anticipate the possibility of another global shutdown and do what we can with our rules to respond. Yet another reason I think the current rules are better. > > The world is not the same place it was prior to March 2020. Nostalgia is great, but not the way to move forward. IMO we need to evolve are rules with the reality there will always be some (useful) attendees who must be remote. That's my opinion - which will get you a cup of coffee this week at certain times in the break area if you're attending the plenary in person 😉. > > Cheers > Ben > > > Benjamin A. Rolfe > > Blind Creek Associates > > Ben@blindcreek.com<mailto:Ben@blindcreek.com> > > +1 408 332 0725 (Mobile) > > +1 408 395 7207 (Office) > > [cid:9ad4e5d4-94c3-4797-a76e-80f5485e7313] > > ________________________________ > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> on behalf of Clint Chaplin <clint.chaplin@GMAIL.COM> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 8:39 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. > > We do need to somehow address one potential corner case... > > Due to COVID, 7 consecutive plenaries (and a corresponding number of interims) were virtual only. If that happens again under this proposal, we'll all lose our voting rights, and nobody will be able to gain voting rights during that time. > > We can have a blanket waiver for losing the voting rights, but the gaining of voting rights is a bit more complicated. > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 7:42 AM Benjamin Rolfe <ben@blindcreek.com<mailto:ben@blindcreek.com>> wrote: > 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 > > Ben@blindcreek.com<mailto:Ben@blindcreek.com> > > +1 408 332 0725 (Mobile) > > +1 408 395 7207 (Office) > > [cid:ii_18e334f4e704047f54a1] > > [X]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > ________________________________ > > 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 > > > -- > Clint Chaplin > Standards Engineer > Samsung Research America > ________________________________ > > 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 > > ---------- > 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. 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 |