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

RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 2:18 AM
To: Roger B. Marks
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; David Trinkwon
Subject: Re: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit

Roger-

The rule:
"Attendance at RR-TAG sessions also counts as attendance in the member's home WG subject to an agreement between the RR-TAG chair and member's home WG chair. Such home WG credit may apply only to a single WG that the member specifies."
had the specific purpose of allowing a designated representative(s) of a WG to attend RR-TAG meetings with no penalty to their attendance record in the WG they were representing at the RR-TAG. It would be my judgement that any such person who wishes this privilege should arrange for it in advance. 
 
 
I respectfully disagree with Geoff's interpretation that the provision of "home WG credit" for attendance in 802.18 sessions is limited to "designated representative(s)
of a WG" ... official liaisons are normally granted dispensation on voting rights by the respective WG and/or TAG Chairs ... the intent of the provision for "home WG
attendance credit" was to promote participation by members of the WGs in the RR-TAG in the interest of creating/maintaining balanced representation of the views
and interests of the WGs in 802.18 ... 

For those who wish to legitimately maintain voting membership in two Working Group, they may do that by doing full sign-in to one WG during even numbered plenaries and another WG in odd numbered plenaries. 
 
This is certainly true ... it takes a bit of juggling to GET there, but once it's done it is possible to maintain voting rights in two WGs this way. 

For those who try to sign-in to more than one meeting during a particular time slot, I believe that one of the following remedies is appropriate.
1) Assume that attendance in each WG is equal and therefore neither meets the 75% requirement. Therefore each should be stricken.

2) The signee takes it upon himself to declare that his attendance in a particular group was >75% and the other less than >25%. That makes the group for which there should be no attendance credit given obvious and the other record can be corrected. 
 
I agree completely with this with regards to any attempt to "double-dip" on WG attendance.
 
It was always the intent that 802.18 attendance count ONLY towards ONE "home" WG and I believe that any proven
attempt to "double-dip" should be treated as an aggregious violation.  (I believe that at least .11 has language in their
WG P&P on this ...)
 
I view "double-dipping" as effectively an attempt at a form of fraud and equally aggregious to "deadbeats"
(er, I mean non-paying attendees :-)
 
In the case of Mr. Trinkwon, I consulted with my Vice-chair, who has been more
in charge of maintaining attendance and we believed that Mr. Trinkwon's claim to
have participated in the 802.18 sessions in question was valid.  (We have been
through some "growing pains" with the electronic attendance system ...)
 
However, if Mr. Trinkwon is ALSO trying to claim to have been in .16 and .20 sessions
at the same time, I would question the validity of that claim and defer to Roger and
the Chair of .20 to resolve the apparent conflict, including whatever "disciplinary" action
they deem appropriate.
 
Mr. Trinkwon has not attained voting rights in 802.18 through sufficient participation, 
but the question of gaining voting rights in .20 or maintaining them in .16 by (apparently)
claiming to be in more than one place at the same time presents some vexing concerns.
 
Regards,

Carl R. Stevenson
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
610-965-8799 (home office)
610-712-3217 (fax mailbox)
610-570-6168 (cellphone)
Short Message Service: 6105706168@voicestream.net
carl.stevenson@ieee.org

  

Geoff


At 01:21 PM 10/3/2003 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:

Dear EC colleagues,

I am seeking your opinions on a Working Group participation credit question. The issue is related to participation in simultaneous Working Group sessions.

An 802.16 Member, David Trinkwon, has requested that I grant him credit for having participated in our Session #24 (the Dallas 802 Plenary in March 2003). My initial response was that, since he signed in to only one meeting interval (and to two more in which he indicated that he was attending 802.18), I had not granted him session credit and would deny his request. David mentioned that he had attended two additional intervals in 802.18 but that somehow the records had not been properly maintained. 802.18 then granted his request for the two additional credits. According the EC-approved 802.18 Policies and Procedures, "Attendance at RR-TAG sessions also counts as attendance in the member's home WG subject to an agreement between the RR-TAG chair and member's home WG chair. Such home WG credit may apply only to a single WG that the member specifies." Under that clause, David would have credit for five 802.16 meeting intervals, which was the minimum requirement.

However, I then came across the fact that David had received credit for participating in all eight of the meeting intervals of the 802.20 Working Group, which was holding its first session that week. I wrote this to David:

As you know, "sign-in during a meeting interval requires attendance during substantially the entire meeting interval."

I understand that you are saying that you attended substantially all of the 802.18 meetings that ran Tuesday (8am-5:11pm) and Wednesday (8:15am-10:07 am and 1:05-5pm).

However, I also understand that you are on record as having participated in all eight of the 802.20 meetings during that week. These ran from 8:10-4:45 on Tuesday, and 8:30-4:45 on Wednesday.

I see a contradiction here. However, I haven't yet decided how to resolve it. I might simply rule that, according to the evidence available to me, you did not participate in Session #26. Alternatively, I might forward your request to my colleagues on the 802 Executive Committee and request their views on it before I make a decision.

I won't forward all of David's response, but he continues to seek the session participation credit, and he said "I'd be happy to review these topics at the 802 Exec level."

Before we get any farther into this, I'd like to ask your views on this matter. Based on the information I have provided, would you recommend that I grant the 802.16 participation credit, or not?

Roger