| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hi Adrian,
I am not able to attend the discussion of attendance on Friday either. But, I’d like to say I am supporting the idea to stop people claiming undue credit. I
would vote for having a measure to stop it. After all, who wants to be on the other side of the moral high ground.
However, I do have a question about the practicality aspect of this idea; this question can be related to the validity of the statistics you have kindly collected.
The question is how to measure the validity of presence without any potential dispute. I can see, at least, there are two options. 1) putting tag on people and rely on location service to measurement the presence 2) putting high penalty for those who claim
undue credit; for the section option, there is still practical problem how to convincingly prove the person is not present for 75% of the session time. No matter what measure will be chosen, I will support it. I am sure legalistic rule is the best way of governing.
That’s my two cents (or I should say “pence”).
Cheers,
Fei From: *** IEEE stds-802-11 List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Daniel Harkins --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hi Adrian, Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the Friday closing plenary to take part in the discussion of attendance (I will have my 75% already :-) ) so I’d like to express my opinion here. The first lesson on the first day of any Economics 101 class is “people respond to incentives”. What we have is a system that incentivizes people to claim attendance credit when they are not, in fact, in the room. And you seem surprised that people claim credit when credit is not due; you shouldn’t be. When people do the calculus in these sorts of issues they weigh the downside (compromise of their “professional ethics”) times the chance of getting caught against the benefits of claiming credit when credit is not due. Now, you may view claiming attendance credit when not in the room as a violation of your professional ethics and you, rightly, hold those in esteem. Therefore one side of your equation is highly weighted. Also, your entire week, everything you need to do this whole week, is done in 802.11 TG rooms so the other side of the equation is not weighted at all. But you are exceptional. Some people may treat an bogus attendance claim as a “little white lie” that doesn’t really hurt anyone (without trying to get into a debate on whether there is, actually, anyone with standing to claim “hurt”), and when they multiply that by the chance of getting caught (apparently a bit over 20% of the people are doing likewise) they don’t have that much of a weight on that side of the equation. And when you think that there are lots of people here this week that are simultaneously doing another job and have calls to make or fires back home to put out, the weight on the other side of the equation becomes considerable. And the incentive is to make the little white lie so a fire can be put out. So when the choice is between telling the boss that the issue that the boss says requires immediate attention will just have to wait until Monday and claiming attendance credit when it is not due, you should not be surprised how the decision ends up being made. When the choice is between being on the conference call to express one’s opinion on a matter that really requires that opinion being expressed and claiming attendance credit when it is not due, you should not be surprised how the decision ends up being made. I seriously doubt that the situation is, as you alleged at the mid-week plenary, that “21% of your colleagues” are “out enjoying lunch”. I think that at least 95% of the people here have at one time made a bogus credit claim and it was not just to go enjoy lunch. And they don’t do it all the time. There is no subclass of slackers who don’t go to 802.11 meetings yet have at least 75% attendance. (And the eating and tourism options here in Dallas are not so compelling to encourage slacking off). So my recommendation is that you just let this slide. Treat it as your local grocer treats the minor pilferage of his grapes. The only option under your control is the “probability of getting caught” factor that is multiplied by the violation of professional ethics. You can name and shame people and cut the 21% number down quite a bit. To what end? Are our standards any better? No, not really. So, just let this slide. Or create a system that has different incentives that people will, naturally, respond to. I have no suggestion on how to design such a system. regards, Dan. _______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.
Instead, go to
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button.
If there is no LEAVE button here, try
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO. Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect. Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button. If there is no LEAVE button here, try http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO. Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________ |