Re: [STDS-802-11] attendance credit

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

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Harkins <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

Hi Andrew,

On 11/12/15, 6:55 AM, "*** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** on behalf of Andrew Myles (amyles)" <STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx on behalf of amyles@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

G’day all

This has been a very interesting discussion relating to the need for attendance credit, and the possibilities for rules changes. I have sympathy for many of the arguments and the discussion should continue

However, given that we are currently operating under an approved set of rules, I have a problem with people claiming credit when they are clearly not in attendance. The example of 2 people falsely claiming credit for the Editors meeting is one instance that Adrian raised yesterday. This is an ethical problem, and ethics is a serious issue for professional engineers.

As far as ethics are concerned, claiming attendance credit while doing one’s day job

is pretty small beer.

If we’re gonna get upset about professional ethics and 802.11 rules then let me bring

up TGai yesterday where a company that normally has 2 people in the room suddenly

had 11 when a contentious vote was held and, unsurprisingly, the vote went the way

the company wanted. While proof doesn’t exist for actual bloc voting the distinct stench

is there.

It might be better to tie attendance credit to actual participation in task groups instead

of to mere seat warming. That way large groups of voters whose only contribution to the

group is to say “no” on command would disappear.

Dan.

A witch hunt is a waste of time and very painful, and I suspect any technological solutions to root out such unethical behaviour is likely to be painful or expensive. Instead I suggest that when Adrian or others spot obvious cases of unethical behaviour with respect to attendance credit that they simply remove the entire weeks credit for that person. This is a balance of deterrent (for all) and punishment (for the few who get caught) and requires little effort.

Andrew

BTW Sometimes I spend half a session in one group and half in another group. I have assumed that I am allowed to claim credit but technically this might not be the case. Am I doing the wrong thing?

From: *** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Harkins
Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2015 4:31 PM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] attendance credit

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

So this has nothing to do with attendance credit…

On 11/11/15, 3:18 PM, "*** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** on behalf of David Bagby" <STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx on behalf of Dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector --- All,
I'm going to say that attempting to devise a clever technical solution to recording perfect attendance is both folly and doomed from the start.

Even the purpose Adrian cites below re gaining voting status is a bit off the mark (IMHO).

One has to ask WHY do we reward attendance as a metric to support voting membership?
The assertion (the truth of which is debatable) is that attendance creates sufficient experience to enable knowledgeable participation in votes on technical subjects... Hum, I think an easy argument can be made that that is a failed theory.

Reality is that (warning, some unvarnished truth is about to be stated) in 802.11 most of the real technical work (for the major activities) is being done in external, closed, by invitation only, SIG organizations. The idea that there is any material amount of active technical exchange is happening during 802.11 weeks is laughable... the idea that forcing people to be in rooms for certain hours or at random times will change that is hilarious.   That emperor has no clothes.

Not sure which emperor you’re talking about. There has been a considerable amount of

active technical exchange in 802.11ai for which I was part of that was not from a SIG. I

have personally contributed quite a bit of text to that amendment through advocation and

socialization in 802.11. If there was a SIG associated with the TG I was unaware of it and it

was not responsible for large portions of that draft.

Now you may poo-poo 802.11ai but it is an existence proof that you’re wrong that 802.11

doesn’t do work, or is some comical rubber-stamp for SIGs.

Since I don’t remember ever seeing you in an 802.11ai TG meeting I can excuse your

ignorance. But ignorant you are.

Dan.

We all know that important work is done in the hallways during breaks and yes, also during meeting sessions (gasp, did I say that out loud?). I predict that hindering this behavior by forcing "sitting attendance" would actually slow 802.11 progress

I suggest that the group do the following:
1) Dump sign-in for determining a session's attendance.
It is nothing but an annoyance to attendees. If people want to be involved in a TG, they get involved. Those that are not as directly involved don't make the same effort. No "where were they all sitting when" technique will change that one iota.
I would favor: You pay for the week's attendance, you get credit for having been here for the week. OK, I could see requiring that one actually show up to pick up the badge to get the week's credit.

2) Remove the rule that kills a LB result when abstains get above a certain percentage.
What you really want is the technical votes to be done by people with relevant technical knowledge.... which we currently get.
Yet, a real problem is that the rules force member behavior which skews LB vote results.

That can also be improved:

3) Enable a valid LB vote of "Abstain" - no reason need be given.
This effectively puts LB vote counting on the same footing as votes that happen during face to face sessions.

Enabling LB votes for "I abstain because I don't want to influence the vote results" (or in cruder jargon: "abstain because I don't give a (*^%!! about the LB topic") will help reduce vote skewing.

For years people that don't care have been voting either "yes" (easy and no effort required by the voter to say why), or
"Abstain, lack of expertise". The "lack of expertise" stigma actually drives people to vote yes instead - further skewing LB votes.

With a revision to the LB abstain voting rules, you would then get more valid LB voting results (as the "don't care's" would stop being counted as "yes"), LBs won't fail for abstain level reasons, and the group does not have to bother to run any complicated attendance measuring mechanisms.

Dave Bagby

On 11/11/2015 4:05 PM, Stephens, Adrian P wrote:

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

Hello all,

I’ve held off from responding to the various opinions expressed.

But I do want to give one piece of information.   The attendance serves two purposes.

The first is to record attendance towards earning voting status.

The second is to record participation for various legal reasons, and as required by the IEEE-SA.

I’m probably not qualified to explain why, even though I think I know :0).

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +1 (971) 330 6025 (mobile) ç please note new number

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

From: *** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vinko Erceg
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 3:56 PM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] attendance credit

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

We should claim attendance once only, when picking up the badge. I think that we all had enough of signing in for every session.

Vinko..

On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

OK, so since everyone else is piling in, I might as well.

I am sympathetic to trying to catch out liars and cheats. However, I am

not sure what the attendance threshold is intended to achieve. It does

not ensure active participation: you can attend and spend the whole 2 hours

reading your email or whatever. So it's arguably just presenteeism.

I don't see any way to address this. So maybe we should just give up on

the attendance requirement and make "paid meeting fee" the sole requirement

for maintaining voting rights?

Mark

--

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN   English/Esperanto/Français

Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre       Tel: +44 1223 434600

Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS      Fax: +44 1223 434601

ROYAUME UNI                             WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

From: *** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of gsmith
Sent: 11 November 2015 15:03
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] attendance credit

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

Hi Adrian,

I will be present on Friday morning but not sure for how long. I would however like to express an opinion in advance as I am sure there will be many speakers on the day.

I am leaning towards supporting the idea that something should be done but Dan makes a valid case that it may be impractical, unintended and/or unenforceable. For example, an attendee signs in at the beginning of a meeting but is called away after 30 minutes for some reason so is not present for the actual count.

I have a cunning scheme:

The attendance, on-line, takes place at a random time, of duration say 5-10 minutes, at about the 50% point of the expected duration of the meeting. The Chair announces the start and stop so as to coincide with the activity at that time in the meeting. Also within that 5 – 10 minute gap the actual count is made.   Hence, a simple check of the time of recording the attendance can be made.

Now, I do not know if the time that an attendee records his/her attendance is recorded at the moment but, if not, that would need to be added in order for this to work.

Thanks

Graham

From: *** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fei Tong
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 3:08 PM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] attendance credit

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

Hi Adrian,

I am not able to attend the discussion of attendance on Friday either. But, I’d like to say I am supporting the idea to stop people claiming undue credit. I would vote for having a measure to stop it. After all, who wants to be on the other side of the moral high ground.

However, I do have a question about the practicality aspect of this idea; this question can be related to the validity of the statistics you have kindly collected. The question is how to measure the validity of presence without any potential dispute. I can see, at least, there are two options. 1) putting tag on people and rely on location service to measurement the presence 2) putting high penalty for those who claim undue credit; for the section option, there is still practical problem how to convincingly prove the person is not present for 75% of the session time. No matter what measure will be chosen, I will support it. I am sure legalistic rule is the best way of governing.

That’s my two cents (or I should say “pence”).

Cheers,

Fei

From: *** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Harkins
Sent: 11 November 2015 18:00
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 _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

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 _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

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 _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

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 _______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________
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 _______________________________________________________________________________

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