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


At 11:58 AM 10/9/2003 +0100, David Trinkwon wrote:
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 signifies "substantial (>75%)" attendance / participation during that interval. If I attend intervals of two (or three) WGs based on my legitimate best efforts 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 "substantial" participation within either / any group and would eventually lose ALL WG memberships / voting rights.

I disagree. It is exceedingly unlikely that any WG Chair would challenge the sign-in for anybody who only signed in for one meeting of a WG during a Plenary Session

But, if you wish to reduce it to the pickiest of rules sifting then...
Attendance is suppose to be taken each half day. WGs and their sub-group get together for several meetings during the week. You can miss one meeting of any group that meets for 4 or more half days and still make the 75% requirement.

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 "participated" 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 the "sister" groups.
It is equally non-sensical to insist / suggest (as Roger has also done) that Company's should send more people if participation is needed in more than one TG or WG. This is not valid for individual contributors (such as myself) and dilutes the "individual versus Corporate" membership ethos of IEEE802. 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 just to satisfy the bureaucracy.
I believe that this is yet another area in which the 802 "Rules" have not kept up with the proliferation of varied activities and WG / TG structures 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 and retain voting rights / membership accordingly. Maybe we should really be members of 802 rather than individual WGs, and maintain a note of our 802 and external affiliations as a matter of record.

That is why we have a Sponsor Ballot requirement. You don't have to be a WG member to vote in the Sponsor Ballot of any 802 Standard. Further, Observer comments are taken seriously during Working Group Ballots. They are taken VERY seriously if it is known to the comment resolution group that the Observer will comment on the same issue as a voter at Sponsor Ballot.



-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: 08 October 2003 23:43
To: David Trinkwon
Cc:; 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 doing the following:

(Let's assume for the sake of discussion that you are a long standing, fully 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 once to WG-B

At the next plenary you fully attend and sign in at WG-B and sign-in once to WG-A

Repeat ad nauseum.

You remain a legitimate voter in each WG as you meet the [2 of the last 4] criteria in each group on an on-going basis,

Your position is that you only bid for legitimate attendance in only one WG per plenary and signed in at the other only to note your continued interest 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 issues.

Best regards,


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 to send me for court martial. The  various Rules that people have referred to don't exactly fit the circumstances at Meeting 24, leaving some real anomalies which I tried to overcome in a sensible way. These were summarised in my email to Roger of 18th August - see below.  Since the different WGs don't exactly synchronise their sessions then it IS sometimes possible to attend a non-overlapping interval of both. This is especially true when (in the case of 802.16) there were VERY FEW actual meetings of the relevant TGs and/or they didn't last very long - certainly not a whole morning or afternoon.

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, since this was the inaugural meeting of 802.20 it was obviously more critical than usual to gain credit (i.e. membership, both to participate in the election (yes - THAT election) and to avoid the 4 - 8 month membership qualification process.

If this is causing so much grief to so many people then I hereby elect to 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 802.16 is "the past". However, I would urge those that worry about the smooth running of 802 to seriously consider my suggestion that full voting rights are given within any 802 Wireless WG (or at least between 802.16 / 802.18 / 802.20  and presumably 802.11 / 802.15 / 802.18 etc) for a member in good 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 to discriminate against participation in sister WGs (as happens between 802.16 and 802.20).

David Trinkwon
Email :

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 be) I 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 802.18 and 802.20 to the best of my ability. I try to do this within the rules (to the extent that they cover the real world situation, which they don't always do) and this is often exacerbated by the actions or omissions of the various WG / TG chairs.

I have NOT broken any of the rules (which you imply), although some have had to be bent to fit the circumstances. If the 802 rules were to be applied 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 and relevant topic somewhere else. Personally, I believe that the time has come to merge the residual (and declining) activity of 802.16 into a separate TG under another appropriate WG (e.g.802.20) in order to straighten out some of these anomalies..

I'd be happy to review these topics at the 802 Exec level and would also then be able to ask for full credit to be given / exchanged between 802.16 and 802.20 since there is an obvious overlap of interest and participation. 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 supper around 7 pm.

I had therefore signed in to 802.16 (using the TGe book) for the Plenary, and later signed in to 802.18. This gives me a full credit for both 802.16 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 to 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) and 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 slice some of my time covering my interests in the 802.16 TGd and TGe and 802.20 groups, but my "substantial" time was spent in 802.18.

c) On Wednesday, as it happened, there were no "relevant" TG16 sessions 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" time 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 had 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 enough to gain "participation".

I scored Four out of "six" credits (75%) for 802.16 (incl two and a half brought over from 802.18), plus one for Tuesday evening (which was an 802.18 interval but not a 802.16 interval).

I scored Seven (not 8 as you say) credits for 802.20 (incl 5 brought over 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 "home group", since at the start of Meeting #24  I was not a member of 802.20 (no 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. It should not have to be either / or and I would urge you and whoever is the chair of 802.20 to iron out your turf issues and make life simpler for us mere members by allowing a full exchange of credits.