RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
Forwarded for a nonsubscriber
From: "David Trinkwon" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: <email@example.com>, "Klerer Mark" <M.Klerer@flarion.com>,
Subject: RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:58:02 +0100
Thanks for the suggestion Geoff, but it does not conform to "the rules"
which stipulate that a sign-in for an individual interval of a WG
"substantial (>75%)" attendance / participation during that interval. If
attend intervals of two (or three) WGs based on my legitimate best
to participate / contribute in all two / three groups (which have
overlapping areas of interest, as with 802.16, 802.120 and 802.18) then
according to the rules, I might not be eligible to sign for
participation within either / any group and would eventually lose ALL WG
memberships / voting rights.
It is non-sensical to insist / suggest (as Roger has done) that because
there were meetings of other TGs within 802.16 that I didn't have any
technical expertise or interest in then I could / should have
there for the purpose of signing in to retain membership credits, rather
than spend my time participating in a more relevant WG/TG meeting within
It is equally non-sensical to insist / suggest (as Roger has also done)
Company's should send more people if participation is needed in more
one TG or WG. This is not valid for individual contributors (such as
and dilutes the "individual versus Corporate" membership ethos of
It is also not cost effective for those of us who travel from other
countries to send multiple people and/or sit in on irrelevant meetings
to satisfy the bureaucracy.
I believe that this is yet another area in which the 802 "Rules" have
kept up with the proliferation of varied activities and WG / TG
which cover its multiple activities, and a bit more flexibility / common
sense would be appropriate. Where there are clearly associated "sister"
groupings (such as 802.11/15/18/19 and 802.16/18/20) then it should be
possible to move around freely within and between the various meetings
retain voting rights / membership accordingly. Maybe we should really be
members of 802 rather than individual WGs, and maintain a note of our
and external affiliations as a matter of record.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 08 October 2003 23:43
To: David Trinkwon
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Klerer Mark; Geoff Thompson;
Subject: RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
I believe that you can avoid any of these problems and maintain fully
legitimate voting privileges in 2 Working Groups at the same time by
(Let's assume for the sake of discussion that you are a long standing,
attending voter of WG-A and that WG-B is a newly created working group)
You have established full attendance in WG-A
You fully attend the 1st session at a plenary of WG-B
and sign-in only once at WG-A
You are now a legitimate voter in each WG.
At the next plenary you fully attend and sign in at WG-A and sign-in
At the next plenary you fully attend and sign in at WG-B and sign-in
Repeat ad nauseum.
You remain a legitimate voter in each WG as you meet the [2 of the last
criteria in each group on an on-going basis,
Your position is that you only bid for legitimate attendance in only one
per plenary and signed in at the other only to note your continued
and to keep your information up to date.
I believe that this is fully legit under 802 rules, any attendance at
interims is gravy, and it completely steps away from any double sign-in
At 06:57 PM 10/8/2003 +0100, David Trinkwon wrote:
I am disturbed to see some of the language now emerging about "double
dipping" and other derogatory phrases from people who seem to be ready
send me for court martial. The various Rules that people have referred
don't exactly fit the circumstances at Meeting 24, leaving some real
anomalies which I tried to overcome in a sensible way. These were
in my email to Roger of 18th August - see below. Since the different
don't exactly synchronise their sessions then it IS sometimes possible
attend a non-overlapping interval of both. This is especially true when
the case of 802.16) there were VERY FEW actual meetings of the relevant
and/or they didn't last very long - certainly not a whole morning or
Regarding Mark's agreement to give me credit in 802.10 for attending
802.18 then it seems that this might not be strictly valid since it was
impossible for 802.10 to be a "Home WG" for anyone at Mtg 24. However,
this was the inaugural meeting of 802.20 it was obviously more critical
usual to gain credit (i.e. membership, both to participate in the
(yes - THAT election) and to avoid the 4 - 8 month membership
If this is causing so much grief to so many people then I hereby elect
KEEP my 802.20 credit (and membership) and forego the 802.16 credit (but
retain my membership for the moment, since 802.20 is "the future" and
is "the past". However, I would urge those that worry about the smooth
running of 802 to seriously consider my suggestion that full voting
are given within any 802 Wireless WG (or at least between 802.16 /
802.20 and presumably 802.11 / 802.15 / 802.18 etc) for a member in
standing of ANY of the "sister" WGs. Then we wouldn't have to play silly
games to make the system work. It should NOT be possible for WG chairs
discriminate against participation in sister WGs (as happens between
Email : Trinkwon@compuserve.com
USA Tel : 650 245 5650 Fax : 650 649 2728
UK Tel : +44 (0)7802 538315 Fax : +44 (0)20 7504 3586
As an individual member (which IEEE proudly insists that we all must
have to do my best to represent the varied interests of myself and my
(multiple) clients. This means that I have legitimate reasons / needs to
cover the overlapping activities / interests of 802.16 TGd, TGe and
and 802.20 to the best of my ability. I try to do this within the rules
the extent that they cover the real world situation, which they don't
do) and this is often exacerbated by the actions or omissions of the
WG / TG chairs.
I have NOT broken any of the rules (which you imply), although some
had to be bent to fit the circumstances. If the 802 rules were to be
literally then I could easily spend all week actively participating in a
number of meetings and not qualify for ANY participation under any WG.
Alternatively I would have to sit in on some irrelevant (to me) meetings
just for the sake of getting a credit, while missing a more important
relevant topic somewhere else. Personally, I believe that the time has
to merge the residual (and declining) activity of 802.16 into a separate
under another appropriate WG (e.g.802.20) in order to straighten out
I'd be happy to review these topics at the 802 Exec level and would
then be able to ask for full credit to be given / exchanged between
and 802.20 since there is an obvious overlap of interest and
Some people might go further and ask for credits to be given / exchanged
between ANY 802 Wireless WG (e.g. 802.11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20)and to have
this built into the Electronic signin system (when it works).
Regarding the facts and your insinuations for the week in question :
a) On Monday I attended the full 802.16 Plenary (two hours) and hence
missed the 802.20 and 802.11/15/18/19/20 Joint Opening Plenaries. I then
attended the 802.18 working session (four hours) until they broke for
around 7 pm.
I had therefore signed in to 802.16 (using the TGe book) for the
and later signed in to 802.18. This gives me a full credit for both
and 802.18. I spoke to the 802.20 chair and explained my difficulty in
registering for inaugural membership of 802.20 that week and he agreed
give me credit for any 802.18 sessions. He would not credit me for any
802.16 sessions because he said that you had previously refused to grant
credits to 802.20 SG/WG participants for 802.16 membership.
b) On Tuesday, I attended 802.18 all day and evening (three intervals)
claimed credit for two of the corresponding 802.16 and three 802.20
intervals. Since interval times were not exactly aligned I was able to
some of my time covering my interests in the 802.16 TGd and TGe and
groups, but my "substantial" time was spent in 802.18.
c) On Wednesday, as it happened, there were no "relevant" TG16
for me to attend, and I registered for one interval with 802.18 and one
interval with 802.20. Again, I was able to spend my "non-substantial"
keeping tabs on the "other" meeting. The 802.18 interval is claimed as a
credit for both 802.16 and 802.20.
d) On Thursday I had to attend a client meeting in Houston, but as it
happened there were no relevant 802.16 TG meetings, and in the evening I
to choose the 802.20 Election meeting over the 802.16 Plenary.
So, I therefore scored five credits on 802.18 (71%) which was not
to gain "participation".
I scored Four out of "six" credits (75%) for 802.16 (incl two and a
brought over from 802.18), plus one for Tuesday evening (which was an
interval but not a 802.16 interval).
I scored Seven (not 8 as you say) credits for 802.20 (incl 5 brought
from 802.18, plus Weds pm and Thurs evening) and therefore qualified for
their voting and inaugural membership.
One final comment, my registration with 802.18 quotes 802.16 as my
group", since at the start of Meeting #24 I was not a member of 802.20
one else was either). Now that I have acquired membership of 802.20 and
still want to retain my membership of 802.16, at least until TGd and TGe
have finished, I will have to take similar actions at future sessions.
should not have to be either / or and I would urge you and whoever is
chair of 802.20 to iron out your turf issues and make life simpler for
mere members by allowing a full exchange of credits.