Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of reciprocal credit "rule"
James,
I agree that a WG Chair should be able to opt their group in or out for reciprocal credit based on whether the Chair considers attendance at the other group to be for the benefit of the home group. For IMAT to track the credit, there should be a consistent rule on how credit works when one opts in. I think that could be in the Chair's guideline since 7.2.1 already covers the overall rule - that the WG Chair can choose to grant credit for contributions other than attendance at the WG.
Mentor will not cover all such discretionary credit. As a WG chair, I on occasion granted credit for attendance at one of the EC meetings during the week (e.g. the then equivalent to our meetings during the week on things like international standardization, IEEE 802 revision) and since then I've been granted credit in 802.3 or 802.1 for attending that type of meeting. But we should be able to come up with something consistent for covering WG-WG or WG-TAG credit.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 2:40 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of reciprocal credit "rule"
Rick
I fully agree with you that we should have a single method for this. As
I said "Still, it would be best if we had one algorithm all WGs agreed
to with a simple opt in/opt out."
So, does that mean a WG P&P change? Chair's guideline change? Let us
first agree what we mean (and all interpretations) and then see if we
can get IMAT to reflect it.
IMHO.
James Gilb
On 03/25/2013 02:09 PM, Rick Alfvin wrote:
> Hi James, If each working group is allowed to define a different rule
> set for managing reciprocal credit we have a wee bit of a problem
> with the static IMAT attendance system that has a single method for
> assigning reciprocal credit. This problem is only compounded and
> exacerbated by the attendance system's inability to deal with or
> recognize real times changes in MyProject voter status occurring
> during plenary sessions, which in turn inhibits IMAT's ability to
> correctly assign reciprocal credit to a new voter.
>
> These two inconsistencies make it very difficult to determine
> attendance status and make the IMAT attendance system less than
> useful.
>
> Thanks, -Rick
>
> Rick Alfvin VP Business Development
>
> Verilan, Inc. 7327 SW Barnes Rd. #215 Portland, OR 97225
>
> Mobile: +1 (585) 781-0952 Email: ralfvin@verilan.com Skype:
> ralfvin.verilan Website: www.verilan.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 3:38 PM, James P. K. Gilb <gilb@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> All
>>
>> I sent a much longer email, but as for the history, I believe Ivan
>> and I are in agreement. The WG/TAG chairs define what is
>> reciprocal rights for their group.
>>
>> For example, 802.24 TAG does not offer reciprocal rights to other
>> groups (i.e., that you could use 3 802.15 meetings to count as 100%
>> attendance in 802.24). I am pleased that some other WGs do offer
>> reciprocal attendance in their groups for attending 802.24
>> meetings, but, AFAIK, it is their choice how to do it.
>>
>> Still, it would be best if we had one algorithm all WGs agreed to
>> with a simple opt in/opt out.
>>
>> IMHO.
>>
>> James Gilb
>>
>> On 03/25/2013 06:16 AM, Ivan Reede wrote:
>>> Well, if it can be of some use, I can give some history here, as
>>> I was around when the recoprocal rights were created.
>>>
>>> A long time ago, some TAGs had attendance problems because people
>>> would not attend them in fear of losing their voting rights in
>>> their WG. To alleviate this and allow the interested people to
>>> atend the TAGs and not lose thier voting rights in their WG,
>>> reciprocal attendance credit was created. This allows a user to
>>> attend a TAG and log their attendance in their WG, such as to be
>>> able to participate in a TAG and maintain thier voting rights in
>>> their WG. Chairs determine the TAG pertinence to the their WG by
>>> deciding to allow for reciprocal attendance credits between said
>>> TAG and their WG. Now thats it for the historical reasons for the
>>> reciprocal attendance credits. After that, TAGS were eliminated
>>> and called working groups... so now, chairs can create reciprocal
>>> rights between and WGs.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, "a" is the correct answer right now, although "b"
>>> is an interesting alternative which would greatly simplfy things,
>>> i.e. once you have acquired votingrights in one group, visiting
>>> another group with recpropcal voting rights would allow you to
>>> maintain your voting rights in the first group and would
>>> eliminate the "home group juggling" from one meeting to the next.
>>> It would not change things in the manner of what can be done, it
>>> would just simplify things by automating them rather than
>>> requiring the particiapnt to keep a record, session by session,
>>> of where to direct their reciprocal attendance and would simplify
>>> the software by removing confusing/cryptic questions. In any
>>> case, if one wants to mainting their voting rights in their home
>>> WG, they should concentrate their presence into a single WG
>>> during the entire week, thereby, the question asked at every
>>> single 2 hour period is annoying at best, outright confusing to
>>> newbies trying to use the attednance syste!
>> m. I think if "a" is maintained as the right choice, something
>> could be done to ask the "home group" question once for the entire
>> week, and leave it at that.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents worth, Ivan Reede, vice chair, 802.19 -----
>>> Original Message ----- From: Jon Rosdahl To: Stephens, Adrian P ;
>>> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013
>>> 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of reciprocal
>>> credit "rule"
>>>
>>>
>>> a) I believe the current operation is correct (i.e., visited
>>> + 1 home)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that the tool needs to be fixed in that the prompt is
>>> less than informative, and the instructions less than clear.
>>>
>>> I will work to get a ticket in place, to fix it up, but our input
>>> to help with the final expected operation would be helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that only a "voter" can make use of the reciprocal credit
>>> option, and it cannot be used to "gain" voting rights, but only
>>> to maintain them.
>>>
>>> When Marking Attendance, a choice of which "home" group should be
>>> selectable, and if you are attending your home group, and you
>>> only want home credit, that should be an option (currently it is
>>> not).
>>>
>>> FWIW,
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephens, Adrian P To:
>>> STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE..ORG Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:09
>>> PM Subject: [802SEC] Interpretation of reciprocal credit "rule"
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear 802 EC,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As mentioned at the EC meeting today, there is a question of
>>> interpretation regarding reciprocal credit.
>>>
>>> Although the answer may be buried somewhere in an EC motion or an
>>> IEEE-SA staff document before my
>>>
>>> time, I cannot find anything in the rules/OM relating to this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Definitions:
>>>
>>> home group - a group in which a user has voting rights
>>>
>>> visited group - a group that a user attends, which is granted
>>> reciprocal credit by the home group
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A voter visits a group and records attendance. The question is
>>> simple.
>>>
>>> Should the voter get attendance at:
>>>
>>> a) One of the home group and the visited group
>>>
>>> b) Both of the home group and the visited group (current)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And if the voter has multiple home groups should the voter get
>>> attendance credit:
>>>
>>> a) One of the home group and visited groups
>>>
>>> b) The visited group and one of the home groups (current)
>>>
>>> c) The visited group and all of the home groups
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Current behaviour (modulo a few UI infelicities) is highlighted.
>>>
>>> I initially took this to be a bug, because I laboured under the
>>> mistaken assumption that
>>>
>>> attendance credit should not multiply unnecessarily. (Stephens'
>>> razor).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to get feedback on how you think the system should
>>> behave. Once I get this, I'll
>>>
>>> document this behaviour, and if necessary work with Jon to raise
>>> a ticket to change it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to help provide rapid feedback, I have some stock responses
>>> prepared below:
>>>
>>> a) I believe the current operation is correct (i.e., visited
>>> + 1 home)
>>>
>>> b) I believe single attendance credit is correct (i.e.,
>>> visited or home)
>>>
>>> c) I don't do reciprocal credit, I have no opinion
>>>
>>> d) I don't care, I have no opinion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian P STEPHENS
>>>
>>> Tel: +44 (1793) 404 825
>>>
>>> Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900
>>>
>>> Tel: +1 (408) 239 7485
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------- 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.
>>> !DSPAM:514d2e5138661446669480! ---------- 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.