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

Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of reciprocal credit "rule"

Hi James,

I'm in total agreement - today reciprocal credit can only be granted under the rule in subclause 7.2.1 that you quote that allows a WG Chair to confer voting membership. Hence it is up to the Working Group Chair to choose to extend reciprocal credit - and to define the conditions under which it will be granted.

Best regards,

-----Original Message-----

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: 25 March 2013 19:26
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of reciprocal credit "rule"


First, to answer your question, I prefer a), which necessitates 
selecting a home group when you have more than one.

Now for my opinion regarding the rules.

Below, I have a long discussion on what the minutes said early part of 
the 21st century regarding the .18 and .19.  However, since you probably 
don't want to read all that, here is my conclusion:  By our rules, the 
WG Chair is allowed to confer voting membership
7.2.1. Establishment
"Membership may be declared at the discretion of the WG Chair (e.g., for 
contributors by correspondence or other significant contributions to the 
So, by whatever method is defined by the Chair of a WG, reciprocal 
credit (as defined by the WG Chair) may be extended.

AFAIK: There is no 802 rule or motion that covers it.  Ask your WG chair 
for a ruling.

Here starts the long answer. I was not there, but the minutes speak as 

March 2002: 802.11, 802.15, and 802.16 requested the formation of a 
Radio Regulatory TAG.  It appears that the motion that was approved was:
"To establish a new Technical Advisory Group for Radio
Regulatory matters and direct the interim Chair to work with the
Chairs of 802.11, 802.15 and 802.16, by email correspondance to develop 
an SEC approved charter for the TAG"
(Moved Hayes, second Kerry, approve 9/0/0)

At that time the WGs had different views, including that the TAG would 
consist of two appointed members from each wireless WG, where in other 
cases (e.g. 802.16) there was a desire "To grant attendance credit to WG 
members attending the RR TAG"

Carl Stevenson was appointed as the first Chair of the RR TAG (March 
2002). "Carl’s appointment was affirmed unanimously." (there is no 
comment in the minutes if the Recording Secretary asked for the proposed 
TAG chair for his letters, they may have not been required at that point).

The proposed change in the rules died for lack of a second and another 
motion was proposed: "Moved: to use the proposed rules change in 
document RR-02/038r0 as a basis for a rules change letter ballot on TAG 
operation in the context of the Radio Regulatory TAG, to be issued at 
the July 2002 Plenary."  In the July minutes, there is no mention of the 
status of this motion.

(As an aside, not only was this pre-mentor days, I am pretty sure it was 
balloon with CF card days.)

Note that a Coexistence SG was chartered at this meeting with very 
specific goals "To establish an SEC Coexistence Study Group. The Study 
Group shall develop a recommendation to the SEC for developing 
coexistence practice and process within 802." (moved Thompson, seconded 
Jeffree)  Jim Lansford was the chair of the study group (what we would 
now call an ECSG).

Note, however, that by July 2002, the RR TAG had bee formed.

At the July opening plenary, Stevenson presented (apparently without any 
motion confirming this):
  o Attendance at .18 sessions counts towards maintaining voting rights 
in your “home” WG
  o Those attending 75% or more of the .18 sessions at this meeting gain 
voting rights ... after this meeting, normal attendance requirements to 
gain (and maintain) voting rights will take effect

My sense is that the individual working groups, either by Chair's fiat 
or by motion had approved this. Note that  AFAIK, there is no 802 
position on this.  For example 802.3 is not granting "reciprocal 
credits" at this point (or at any point in the future, AFAIK).

At this point, the TAG did not have special status in the rules (it was 
one of the tasks of that plenary).

The 802.18 charter document 18-02—012r0, was approved at the closing 
plenary (moved: Stevenson/O’Hara, passed 5/0/4).  Note that this is not 
on the normal mentor site, you need to go to the deep dark archives for 
this one.  Voting rights were not mentioned in the TAG charter or the 
Rules changes presented at this meeting.

(Note: Carl's election at 802.18 Chair is confirmed at the July, 2002 
closing plenary, Moved: Kerry/Thompson, Passes: 9/0/0).

(Note 2: Lansford is already tagged to be 802.19 TAG Chair an Mark 
Klerer is the chair of the soon to be enmeshed in controversy ECSG MBWA 
(aka: 802:20))

After this, there does not appear to be discussion on attendance, my 
guess is that this is handled on a WG by WG basis.


James Gilb

On 03/22/2013 03:09 PM, Stephens, Adrian P wrote:
> Dear 802 EC,
> As mentioned at the EC meeting today,  there is a question of interpretation regarding reciprocal credit.
> Although the answer may be buried somewhere in an EC motion or an IEEE-SA staff document before my
> time,  I cannot find anything in the rules/OM relating to this.
> Definitions:
> home group - a group in which a user has voting rights
> visited group - a group that a user attends,  which is granted reciprocal credit by the home group
> A voter visits a group and records attendance.   The question is simple.
> Should the voter get attendance at:
> a)      One of the home group and the visited group
> b)      Both of the home group and the visited group (current)
> And if the voter has multiple home groups should the voter get attendance credit:
> a)      One of the home group and visited groups
> b)      The visited group and one of the home groups (current)
> c)       The visited group and all of the home groups
> Current behaviour (modulo a few UI infelicities) is highlighted.
> I initially took this to be a bug,  because I laboured under the mistaken assumption that
> attendance credit should not multiply unnecessarily.  (Stephens' razor).
> I'd like to get feedback on how you think the system should behave.  Once I get this,  I'll
> document this behaviour,  and if necessary work with Jon to raise a ticket to change it.
> Just to help provide rapid feedback,  I have some stock responses prepared below:
> a)      I believe the current operation is correct (i.e., visited + 1 home)
> b)      I believe single attendance credit is correct (i.e., visited or home)
> c)       I don't do reciprocal credit,  I have no opinion
> d)      I don't care,  I have no opinion
> Best Regards,
> Tel: +44 (1793) 404 825
> Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900
> Tel: +1 (408) 239 7485
> ----------------------------------------------
> Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
> Registered No. 1134945 (England)
> Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
> VAT No: 860 2173 47
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.