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

[802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit

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?