Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Proposed P&P Revision ballot on 'WG Membership and Meetings'



At 04:56 16/03/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
Regarding the last part, the following pathological situation exists in the rules today.  I donít return 2 out of 3 ballots, so I loss my membership.  But I attend all the meetings.  So if I show up at the next plenary, I automatically regain my membership.  This seems counter the intent of the rule, so Iíve explicitly stated that loss of membership results in prior attendance being discounted.
 

Mat -

Actually that case *does not* exist in the rules today, because they currently state that "Membership may be re-established as if the person were a new candidate member" in this case (i.e., you re-start building credit from scratch).

Making loss of prior attendance credit a blanket rule for all membership loss situations means that if someone shows up after a period of absence of a bit less than a year (intending to regularly attend again), you can get the crazy situation where they manage to attend a meeting just inside a year from their last attendance, but their membership is lost say 1 month later, and even though they attend the very next session, they lose the previous session's attendance credit.

That is totally nuts, and if the wording stays that way, I will vote against the change, and that is a case that I will absolutely not apply in 802.1.

So I believe that you should revert to the previous formulation, where loss of prior attendance credit only applies where you lose membership through failure to meet your obligations as a member (paying your meeting dues, and responding to ballots) - in other words, it is applied as a punitive measure for miscreants.

I believe the fix here is to move the sentence "Membership is also lost...365 day period" to the end of the paragraph, and add a sentence indicating that any membership credit that falls within the 365-day period is retained in this case.

I would also suggest that instead of 365 days, we use "the span of the three most recent plenary sessions" as the time period, and make it clear that the this rule is applied at the end of each Plenary session, thus reducing the time to age out non-participants to 8 months rather than 12.

Regards,
Tony
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.