Hi Adrian,
Unfortunately it's not always that simple with the algorithm we use. It
is possible for a nearly member to become a voting member at the beginning
of a plenary and attend less them 75% of that session and lose their newly
gained voting rights at the close of that plenary. Hence they would become
an observer not an aspirant.
What I'm saying is that there is no need for a special loss clause for
non-attendance. We simply always apply the algorithm to determine a
person's status, which may fluctuate from session to session.
-Rick Alfvin
Sent from my iPhone 5s
On Feb 24, 2014, at 2:00 AM, "Stephens, Adrian P" <
Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM> wrote:
Hello Geoffrey and all,
These changes are an improvement to clarity. But they still don’t
explicitly address the loss due to non-attendance.
The “Loss” subclause is related solely to loss by non-return of ballots,
but the heading implies its scope is broader than that.
Also we should cover the commonest case first.
IMHO the “Loss” subclause should state:
1. Loss due to non-attendance results in transition to aspirant (1
attendance in last 4 plenaries/interims) or non-voter (no attendances in
last 4 plenaries/interims)
2. Loss due to non-return of ballots results in transition to
observer and loss of attendances.
3. Loss due to non-payment of registration results in transition to
observer and loss of attendances.
Or it should narrow its scope in the heading.
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)
Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
*From:* ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [
mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>] *On Behalf Of *Geoff
Thompson
*Sent:* 22 February 2014 23:30
*To:* STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules
James, Colleagues-
I never thought that there was a problem with the rules as stated, but
then my tenure as chair was back when we were less concerned about cross-WG
uniformity of rules and such items were more at the hands of individual WG
Chairs.
I have just reviewed the relevant WG P&P text, to wit:
7.2.2. Retention
Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four
plenary sessions. One duly constituted recent interim WG or task group
session may be substituted for one of the two plenary sessions.
7.2.3. Loss
Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two of
the last three WG letter ballots are not returned, or are returned with an
abstention for other than “lack of technical expertise.” This rule may be
excused by the WG Chair if the individual is otherwise an active
participant. If lost per this subclause, membership is re-established as if
the person were a new candidate member.
I believe that it could be improved and more clearly meet what I believe
are the intentions with the following changes. I believe these changes are
only changes in wording, not intended meaning:
7.2.2. Retention
Membership is retained by participating by *as indicated by the required
level of registered attendance* in at least two of the last four plenary
sessions *and by participating in WG letter ballots*. O*Registered
attendance at o*ne duly constituted recent interim WG or task group
session may be substituted for one of the two plenary sessions.
7.2.3. Loss
Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two of
the last three WG letter ballots are not returned, or are returned with an
abstention for other than “lack of technical expertise.” This rule may be
excused by the WG Chair if the individual is otherwise an active
participant. If lost per this subclause, membership *participation credit
by attendance is reset to zero.* is re-established as if the person were
a new candidate member.
Best regards,
Geoff
On Feb 22, 2014, at 11:23 AM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:
All
As I thought about this on Friday, I came to a similar conclusion as Roger.
Under 7.2.1, the individual in question has achieved "participation
credit" for July 2013 and January 2014. AFAIK, there is no controversy
concerning that conclusion.
So, the only question is this: What are the situations under which
"participation credit" for a session can be removed?
I know of only two (thanks Jon for finding the other one):
IEEE LMSC OM 5.4 - Due to failure to "comply with the registration
requirements for that session, and further has not complied with those
requirements within 60 days after the end of the session, including payment
of any required registration fees,"
IEEE LMSC WG P&P 7.2.3 - If 'two of the last three WG letter ballots are
not returned, or are returned with an abstention for other than “lack of
technical expertise.”'
I can find no other rule that allows a WG to take away participation
credit earned for a session.
James Gilb
On 02/21/2014 01:53 PM, Roger Marks wrote:
Adrian,
As I understand, you are discussing membership retention and loss based
only on participation. In other words, your question presumes that the
individual has met all other obligations (balloting, fees, ...). I'll
share my views based on that understanding.
Subclause 7.2.1 states the conditions for establishing membership. An
individual who meets those conditions has a right to be granted
membership. The rules do not provide for WG officials to override the
individual's membership rights; for example, by declaring that some
session participation will be ignored on the grounds that the individual
has recently lost membership.
I don't see any ambiguity on this in the rules.
Regards,
Roger
Stephens, Adrian P <mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM<Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM>
21 February 2014 12:34 AM
Dear SEC,
If you are responsible for maintaining voting status for your WG,
please respond to the
question at the end of this email.
A query by an 802.11 member causes me to question how I've interpreted
the WG P&P regarding
loss of membership through non-attendance.
The WG P&P State: (my highlight)
7.2.2. Retention
Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last
four plenary sessions. One duly
constituted interim WG or task group session may be substituted for
one of the two plenary
sessions.
7.2.3. Loss
Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two
of the last three WG letter
ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention for other
than "lack of technical
expertise." This rule may be excused by the WG Chair if the individual
is otherwise an active
participant. If lost per this subclause, membership is re-established
as if the person were a new
candidate member.
It describes how to retain membership by participation, but does not
state what happens
if the member fails to maintain membership. In the case of failure
to return ballots, it is
explicit that the member is reset as though a new member.
So, the rules are ambiguous. You could interpolate a rule similar
to the highlighted case
for non-attendance (which I have unconsciously done in 802.11). In
doing so, I am following
previous 802.11 vice chairs' interpretation.
We have a member with the following attendances
03 2013 - No (plenary)
05 2013 - No (interim)
07 2013 - Yes (plenary)
09 2013 - No (interim)
11 2013 - No (plenary) (loses voting rights)
01 2013 - Yes (interim)
03 2013 - Yes (plenary)
According to the "everything reset" interpretation, the member is an
aspirant at the
start of march. According to the "2 in last 4 plenaries, regardless
of loss of voting rights in this period"
interpretation, he is a potential voter.
The implication of the "does not reset" interpretation is that a
member never transitions to non-member
directly, but always transitions first to aspirant. And then later
transitions to non-member.
IMHO, your working groups must be operating one of the following two
rules:
1.Resets to non-member, loses previous attendances
2.Reverts to aspirant, keeps previous attendances for future gain to
voting member.
Please let me know of these rule you are operating. If it turns out
we're all doing the same thing, we should
put that in the WG P&P.
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)
Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)
----------------------------------------------
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.
----------
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.