This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
Thanks for the inputs. If I receive no
objections to your suggestions during the day, I will attempt to implement you
suggestion in the proposed P&P revision ballot tonight.
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
From: Tony Jeffree
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Subject: 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 don’t 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 I’ve
explicitly stated that loss of membership results in prior attendance being
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
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
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
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.