RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
I am not a voting member of the SEC, but as you know, the issue of dual sign-in to 802.16 and 802.20 was raised at the March meeting. Based on the public record there are actually several 802.16 participants that received participation credits for both the 802.20 and 802.16 sessions. If, as you state, 5 802.16 meetings were required for participation credit this is clearly not possible.
The sign-in problem in March goes beyond this one case; and in fairness I would expect that David Trinkwon be treated the same way as the other cases.
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 3:22 PM
Cc: David Trinkwon
Subject: [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
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?