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

Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules

Pat

I disagree. It is far from obvious, particularly when the retention clause is followed by a clause titled loss that mentions only one case. Simply fixing up the title leaves the reader having to look in 3 places in 2 documents to figure out all the loss cases, and one of those cases is in itself ambiguous IMO because it fails to state the consequences.

Adrian's suggested rewriting of the loss clause fixes that.

Regards,
Tony

On 24 Feb 2014 23:52, "Pat Thaler" <pthaler@broadcom.com> wrote:
I think that it's obvious and doesn't need to be stated that if you fail to fulfill the requirements for "retention" you aren't a voter. That's what retention means.

But I agree that "loss" would be better titled "loss due to failure to return ballots" or something similar.

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, February 24, 2014 8:22 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules

Tony

That makes sense.  Right now, we only discuss maintaining membership and
we do not explicitly state that failing to maintain membership results
in losing membership but maintaining current participation credits.

Likewise, we don't explicitly state in Loss that this results in loss of
participation credit for prior sessions (it is implied, but not
explicitly stated).  Geoff's text is a good start and we can get this
cleaned up by the end of July (unfortunately, we can't get it done any
sooner).

James Gilb

On 02/24/2014 04:40 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> Hi Rick -
>
> The point is that as currently written, there is no clear statement that
> failing the retention criteria results in loss of voting status. So right
> now, I believe anyone losing voting rights due to non attendance would have
> a good case for appeal. So adding such a statement might possibly be a good
> plan.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
> On 24 February 2014 11:31, Rick Alfvin <ralfvin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> ----------
> 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.