RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
Roger, and EC Members
My original e-mail was addressed to Mr. Marks, and my reference to the issue of dual sign-in in 802.16 and 802.20 being raised was to a discussion I had with Mr. Marks. The main point of the e-mail is that all cases of dual sign-in ought to be treated in the same manner.
I am also glad to see that Mr. Marks found the 3 additional individuals that had 100% dual sign-ins. As Mr. Marks states "none had ever before attended an 802.16 session at an 802 plenary" though each had attended at least one previous interim meeting of 802.16.
As for the issue of "some kind of coordinated action", I do not recall having raised that issue in my e-mail; besides "coordinated action" is an issue that is an issue separate from dual sign-in.
As far as the full extend of dual sign-ins is concerned (i.e. less than 100% overlap) that is difficult for me to determine since I do not have access to the 802.16 attendance registers. However, I do know for a fact that it initially went beyond the three 100% overlap cases.
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 4:51 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] request for your views on attendance credit
I appreciate your comments regarding the attendance credit issue on which I sought your advice earlier this month.
I'd like to clarify an issue that arose during the discussion. Namely, Mr. Klerer said that "as you know, the issue of dual sign-in to 802.16 and 802.20 was raised at the March meeting." I am not familiar with this issue being "raised". I was informed by Mr. Nikolich that all WGs had been asked to provide such information, not because of specific concerns of dual sign-in to 802.16 and 802.20 but as part of a broad statistical study of dual sign-ins across all WGs.
Mr. Klerer also stated that "several 802.16 participants... received participation credits for both the 802.20 and 802.16 sessions." I have studied the minutes of both groups and identified three people in this category. All were novices in 802.16: none was a member, and none had ever before attended an 802.16 session at an 802 plenary. It's certainly possible that none was aware that their action might be considered inappropriate. They were from three different companies and three different continents, so it does not appear as if this was some kind of coordinated action.
I have not previously tracked 802.16 participants seeking to determine their participation in other WGs. Without looking at the full data set, it's hard to say whether these three dual credits are significantly above the norm for a typical 802 plenary.
I do think that we should establish a rule to address the issue of participation credits at simultaneous Working Group sessions. However, since the WGs have different attendance procedures (e.g., some signing in once a day and some two or three times day), such a rule could be a little tricky.
At 16:56 -0400 03/10/03, Klerer Mark wrote:
>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?