RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
I agree. I also agree with Buzz that this is an area where the working group chair has to be able to exercise discretion and the existing rule recognizes that. It says that attendance at the RR-TAG counting is "subject to an agreement between the RR-TAG chair and member's home WG chair."
The purpose of allowing the attendance at one group to count for credit at another is to cover cases where a working group needs to have its point of view represented in another group. Often the way this agreement with the chair is made is for the chair to ask for volunteers to attend the other group to represent the Working Group's point of view. The volunteers identify themselves. Another way is to identify people to act in this roll on an on-going basis.
If Roger had an agreement with David and David was fulfilling that agreement (e.g. he was bringing into the TAG the views common among the Working Group and he was making some effort to keep Working Group members informed of what was going on in the TAG) he should get credit. If not, then it is up to Roger's discretion whether he retroactively comes to an agreement.
On the general subject of how these things are managed, TAG/WG participants need enough contact with the WG to be informed voters in their Working Group and to be able to represent the Working Group's needs to the TAG. Ideally this means that the TAG and concerned Working Group's should coordinate their schedules so that TAG meetings don't conflict with the Working Group plenary time. Then a Working Group Chair's agreement with the TAG participants could include a requirement for participation in the Working Group plenary meetings.
From: Mike Takefman [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:53 PM
To: Roger B. Marks
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; David Trinkwon
Subject: Re: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
My personal view is no. The TAG rule allowing credit for the
"home" WG seems reasonable, but it also is reasonable to have a
single home. I do see only one case where a reasonable interpretation
of this rule allowing an individual to get attendance credits at three
WG/TAG sessions by playing around with time budgeting.
In other words, my interpretation of the rule is to allow the following
to occur. An individual spends most of his/her time in their home WG.
They attend some number of TAG meetings and as such fail to meet the
minimum requirements of their home WG. Thus the rule correctly gives
them attendance credits at both.
If the situation occurred where attendance at 802.20 did not conflict
with 802.16 meetings, but 802.18 meetings did conflict with 802.16
meetings there is merit for credit for 802.16/18/20. (This was the
However, assuming that 802.20 meetings and 802.16 meetings
overlapped, I would argue that Mr. Trinknow is attempting to bend
the rules to allow attendance at all three WGs and should be denied
attendance at 802.16.
This does lead to an interesting issue, how does one declare their
home WG and what if any co-ordination is required to prevent an
person from declaring two homes.
Roger B. Marks wrote:
> 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
> 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?
Michael Takefman email@example.com
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991