Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[STDS-802-11] FW: Rejected posting to STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---

Please see attached message forwarded for Knut Odsen.



Best Regards,
 
Adrian P STEPHENS (Dr)
IEEE 802.11 Working Group chair
 
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +1 (971) 330 6025 (mobile) ⇐ please note new number
 
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47



_______________________________________________________________________________

If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.

Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button.

If there is no LEAVE button here, try http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
--- Begin Message ---
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---

Colleagues,



I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Harkins. There are many reasons why obtaining the required 75/75 is sometimes hard to do. It has happened that the groups I follow don’t have enough meetings to make up 75% of the time. In such cases I’m required to crash the party at some group whose work I have no knowledge about. Or I can join a night session. The night sessions can be anything from 2-4 hours. So anyone who has ever left a night session after 1 hour 44 minutes stand in violation. How do you plea? Furthermore to illustrate how the rules sometimes lead to absurd consequences I can mentioned that I have been in perfect compliance while snoozing in the back of the room at a meeting I’m clueless about, while getting no credits whatsoever for informally meeting up in the hallways with colleagues from all over the world to discuss testing and simulation methodology that will benefit the standards work. IMHO we are spending far too much vigilance on finding and rooting out perceived “enemies of the state” and it’s leaving me with an unpleasant taste. How about we instead find ways to incentivize dedication and hard work rather than seeking to punish the ones we deem unworthy. Please stop the witch hunt.

Besides, Joe from 7-eleven is here. He wants his grapes back! J



Sincerely

Knut Odman



From: *** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Harkins
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 10:00 AM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11] attendance credit



--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---



  Hi Adrian,



  Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the Friday closing plenary to take

part in the discussion of attendance (I will have my 75% already :-) ) so I’d

like to express my opinion here.



  The first lesson on the first day of any Economics 101 class is “people respond

to incentives”. What we have is a system that incentivizes people to claim attendance

credit when they are not, in fact, in the room. And you seem surprised that people

claim credit when credit is not due; you shouldn’t be.



  When people do the calculus in these sorts of issues they weigh the downside

(compromise of their “professional ethics”) times the chance of getting caught

against the benefits of claiming credit when credit is not due.



  Now, you may view claiming attendance credit when not in the room as a

violation of your professional ethics and you, rightly, hold those in esteem.

Therefore one side of your equation is highly weighted. Also, your entire week,

everything you need to do this whole week, is done in 802.11 TG rooms so

the other side of the equation is not weighted at all. But you are exceptional.



  Some people may treat an bogus attendance claim as a “little white lie” that

doesn’t really hurt anyone (without trying to get into a debate on whether there

is, actually, anyone with standing to claim “hurt”), and when they multiply that by

the chance of getting caught (apparently a bit over 20% of the people are doing

likewise) they don’t have that much of a weight on that side of the equation. And

when you think that there are lots of people here this week that are simultaneously

doing another job and have calls to make or fires back home to put out, the weight

on the other side of the equation becomes considerable. And the incentive is to

make the little white lie so a fire can be put out.



  So when the choice is between telling the boss that the issue that the boss says

requires immediate attention will just have to wait until Monday and claiming

attendance credit when it is not due, you should not be surprised how the decision

ends up being made. When the choice is between being on the conference call

to express one’s opinion on a matter that really requires that opinion being

expressed and claiming attendance credit when it is not due, you should not be

surprised how the decision ends up being made.



  I seriously doubt that the situation is, as you alleged at the mid-week plenary,

that “21% of your colleagues” are “out enjoying lunch”. I think that at least 95%

of the people here have at one time made a bogus credit claim and it was not

just to go enjoy lunch. And they don’t do it all the time. There is no subclass

of slackers who don’t go to 802.11 meetings yet have at least 75% attendance.

(And the eating and tourism options here in Dallas are not so compelling to

encourage slacking off).



  So my recommendation is that you just let this slide. Treat it as your local

grocer treats the minor pilferage of his grapes. The only option under your

control is the “probability of getting caught” factor that is multiplied by the

violation of professional ethics. You can name and shame people and cut the

21% number down quite a bit. To what end? Are our standards any better? No,

not really. So, just let this slide. Or create a system that has different incentives

that people will, naturally, respond to. I have no suggestion on how to design

such a system.



  regards,



  Dan.





_______________________________________________________________________________

If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.

Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button.

If there is no LEAVE button here, try http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.

Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button.

If there is no LEAVE button here, try http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO.

Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________


--- End Message ---