The issue is whether a participant's employer has a membership and that membership binds the employer and its employees to a particular position.
If the SIG has NDAs with respect to either its membership or its technical positions,
then that can make life difficult when we are trying to do dominance detection.
I admit that a SIG itself may not be financially supporting a position but the combined financial muscle of the SIG members might very well distort affiliation information.
I suspect the IEEE procedures need a little tuning in this area.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
The definitions of affiliation in the bylaws (184.108.40.206) states:
is deemed "affiliated" with any individual or entity that has
been, or will be, financially or materially supporting that
individual's participation in a particular IEEE standards
activity. This includes, but is not limited to, his or her
employer(s) and any individual or entity that has or will have,
either directly or indirectly, requested, paid for, or otherwise
sponsored his or her participation.
The use of the term "SIG affiliation" is incorrect (according to the
current bylaws) unless the SIG is financially or materially
supporting the individual's participation. The definition does not
include the activities that might occur in a SIG (or any other
meeting of individual experts), such as "informing", "influencing",
or "providing a platform to refine submissions".
<flippancy style="far-fetched" lang="usa">If we had to declare
every organization that had an influence on how we make decisions as
individual experts, I'd have to cite Mrs Bishops grade 2 class,
where I first really understood math).</flippancy>
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032