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

Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules



Hi Adrian, 
Unfortunately it's not always that simple with the algorithm we use.  It is possible for a nearly member to become a voting member at the beginning of a plenary and attend less them 75% of that session and lose their newly gained voting rights at the close of that plenary. Hence they would become an observer not an aspirant. 

What I'm saying is that there is no need for a special loss clause for non-attendance. We simply always apply the algorithm to determine a person's status, which may fluctuate from session to session. 

-Rick Alfvin
Sent from my iPhone 5s

On Feb 24, 2014, at 2:00 AM, "Stephens, Adrian P" <Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM> wrote:

Hello Geoffrey and all,

 

These changes are an improvement to clarity.   But they still don’t explicitly address the loss due to non-attendance.

The “Loss” subclause is related solely to loss by non-return of ballots,  but the heading implies its scope is broader than that.

Also we should cover the commonest case first.

 

IMHO the “Loss” subclause should state:

 

1.       Loss due to non-attendance results in transition to aspirant (1 attendance in last 4 plenaries/interims) or non-voter (no attendances in last 4 plenaries/interims)

2.       Loss due to non-return of ballots results in transition to observer and loss of attendances.

3.       Loss due to non-payment of registration results in transition to observer and loss of attendances.

 

Or it should narrow its scope in the heading.

 

Best Regards,

 

Adrian P STEPHENS

 

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile,  UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)

 

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

 

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: 22 February 2014 23:30
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules

 

James, Colleagues-

 

I never thought that there was a problem with the rules as stated, but then my tenure as chair was back when we were less concerned about cross-WG uniformity of rules and such items were more at the hands of individual WG Chairs.

 

I have just reviewed the relevant WG P&P text, to wit:

 

7.2.2. Retention 

Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four plenary sessions. One duly constituted recent interim WG or task group session may be substituted for one of the two plenary sessions. 

 

7.2.3. Loss 

Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two of the last three WG letter ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention for other than “lack of technical expertise.” This rule may be excused by the WG Chair if the individual is otherwise an active participant. If lost per this subclause, membership is re-established as if the person were a new candidate member. 

 

I believe that it could be improved and more clearly meet what I believe are the intentions with the following changes. I believe these changes are only changes in wording, not intended meaning:

 

7.2.2. Retention 

Membership is retained by participating by as indicated by the required level of registered attendance in at least two of the last four plenary sessions and by participating in WG letter ballots. ORegistered attendance at one duly constituted recent interim WG or task group session may be substituted for one of the two plenary sessions. 

 

7.2.3. Loss 

Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two of the last three WG letter ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention for other than “lack of technical expertise.” This rule may be excused by the WG Chair if the individual is otherwise an active participant. If lost per this subclause, membership participation credit by attendance is reset to zero. is re-established as if the person were a new candidate member

 

Best regards,

 

            Geoff

 

 

On Feb 22, 2014, at 11:23 AM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:



All

As I thought about this on Friday, I came to a similar conclusion as Roger.

Under 7.2.1, the individual in question has achieved "participation credit" for July 2013 and January 2014.  AFAIK, there is no controversy concerning that conclusion.

So, the only question is this:  What are the situations under which "participation credit" for a session can be removed?

I know of only two (thanks Jon for finding the other one):

IEEE LMSC OM 5.4 - Due to failure to "comply with the registration requirements for that session, and further has not complied with those requirements within 60 days after the end of the session, including payment of any required registration fees,"

IEEE LMSC WG P&P 7.2.3 - If 'two of the last three WG letter ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention for other than “lack of technical expertise.”'

I can find no other rule that allows a WG to take away participation credit earned for a session.

James Gilb

On 02/21/2014 01:53 PM, Roger Marks wrote:

Adrian,

 

As I understand, you are discussing membership retention and loss based

only on participation. In other words, your question presumes that the

individual has met all other obligations (balloting, fees, ...). I'll

share my views based on that understanding.

 

Subclause 7.2.1 states the conditions for establishing membership. An

individual who meets those conditions has a right to be granted

membership. The rules do not provide for WG officials to override the

individual's membership rights; for example, by declaring that some

session participation will be ignored on the grounds that the individual

has recently lost membership.

 

I don't see any ambiguity on this in the rules.

 

Regards,

 

Roger

Stephens, Adrian P <mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM>

21 February 2014 12:34 AM

 

Dear SEC,

 

If you are responsible for maintaining voting status for your WG,

please respond to the

 

question at the end of this email.

 

A query by an 802.11 member causes me to question how I've interpreted

the WG P&P regarding

 

loss of membership through non-attendance.

 

The WG P&P State: (my highlight)

 

7.2.2. Retention

 

Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last

four plenary sessions. One duly

 

constituted interim WG or task group session may be substituted for

one of the two plenary

 

sessions.

 

7.2.3. Loss

 

Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two

of the last three WG letter

 

ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention for other

than "lack of technical

 

expertise." This rule may be excused by the WG Chair if the individual

is otherwise an active

 

participant. If lost per this subclause, membership is re-established

as if the person were a new

 

candidate member.

 

It describes how to retain membership by participation,  but does not

state what happens

 

if the member fails to maintain membership.    In the case of failure

to return ballots,  it is

 

explicit that the member is reset as though a new member.

 

So,  the rules are ambiguous.   You could interpolate a rule similar

to the highlighted case

 

for non-attendance (which I have unconsciously done in 802.11).  In

doing so,  I am following

 

previous 802.11 vice chairs' interpretation.

 

We have a member with the following attendances

 

03 2013 - No (plenary)

 

05 2013 - No (interim)

 

07 2013 - Yes (plenary)

 

09 2013 - No (interim)

 

11 2013 - No (plenary)  (loses voting rights)

 

01 2013 - Yes (interim)

 

03 2013 - Yes (plenary)

 

According to the "everything reset" interpretation,  the member is an

aspirant at the

 

start of march.   According to the "2 in last 4 plenaries, regardless

of loss of voting rights in this period"

 

interpretation,  he is a potential voter.

 

The implication of the "does not reset" interpretation is that a

member never transitions to non-member

 

directly,  but always transitions first to aspirant.  And then later

transitions to non-member.

 

IMHO, your working groups must be operating one of the following two

rules:

 

1.Resets to non-member,  loses previous attendances

 

2.Reverts to aspirant,  keeps previous attendances for future gain to

voting member.

 

Please let me know of these rule you are operating.   If it turns out

we're all doing the same thing,  we should

 

put that in the WG P&P.

 

Best Regards,

 

Adrian P STEPHENS

 

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)

Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile,  UK)

 

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)

 

----------------------------------------------

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.

 

---------- 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.