|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Re: On slide 13, I have an issue with content, highlighted by the note, but I’m not sure it is wrong versus the rules. I thought the declaration of affiliation was expected for more than activities with approved PARs. This includes pre-PAR activities whether study group or ICAID, and certainly extends to sponsor meetings and governance as well.The problem isn't entirely with the note - it's a reasonable explanation of what is meant by a WG (perhaps with the addition of "or ICAID" after PARThe bullet list should include governance meetings and study group meetings.On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Robert Grow <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Pat, Jonathan:That slide 13 example looks more like the detail that has been gathered during dominance investigations in which I’ve been involved. When I Chaired the dominance ad hoc more than a few years ago, the prototype sign-in sheet developed with IEEE-SA counsel did not have the ultimate parent entity (UPE) columns, but UPE columns were added for WGs where attempts to dominate were alleged. As reinforcement for not requiring UPE with normal sign-in, IMAT and myProject do not include provision of UPE information. Request for website URL was also to aid in investigation of alleged attempt to dominate.As I recall, at the time of the dominance ad hoc, it was also strongly recommended by counsel, that text defining affiliation be included on each page of the meeting sign-in sheet. When recently looking at minutes of various groups, I noted a number have a single column for Employer/Affiliation. For those groups’ minutes that I pulled up, those with this type of single column, were much more likely to only have one response. That may be something Jonathan might want to put more emphasis on (gets a little lost after early slides (e.g., 5 and 6), if we want to reinforce that affiliation(s) may include more than Employer. I personally think it is something some 802 subgroups could improve.Indirectly related is the limitation of IMAT that remains a personal pet peeve. IMAT is not an attendance tool as currently coded, it is an attendance credit tool. If I claim attendance for one group (to get my attendance credit), I cannot record attendance in another group with a time overlap. I’m sure we are all aware of seeing cases where people in the room swells just before a vote, we may even have seen vote counts exceed the total attendees listed in the minutes as a result of the assumed electronic call to like-minded colleagues to come and vote. The only relevance to the presentation perhaps is that IMAT does not necessarily meet the transparency requirements of IEEE-SA rules for disclosure of affiliation (something not covered by the presentation).On slides 7-8, it is my recollection that IEEE-SA has taken the position that faithful, complete, and accurate declaration of affiliation is a condition of indemnification. (I know indemnification is a hot button for other reasons.)On slide 13, I have an issue with content, highlighted by the note, but I’m not sure it is wrong versus the rules. I thought the declaration of affiliation was expected for more than activities with approved PARs. This includes pre-PAR activities whether study group or ICAID, and certainly extends to sponsor meetings and governance as well.—Bob
On Oct 29, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Pat Thaler <000006d722d423ba-dmarc-reques
email@example.com> wrote:I don't see why the examples of affiliation declaration have the websites of the companies. We don't collect websites and I'm not aware of any requirement to do so. We also only ask for a declaration of the company, not for the person to declare the "ultimate parent" company. I don't recall anything in the past materials on affiliation and in the rules on affiliation that ask for this.None of the examples show the case where someone declares multiple affiliations.Regards,PatOn Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Paul Nikolich <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.Dear EC Members,I asked Jonathan Goldberg to prepare a document that can be used as a 'best practices guide' on the declaration of affiliation requirements for 802 participants (https://mentor.ieee.org/802-e c/dcn/17/ec-17-0171-00-00EC-ie) and to briefly introduce the topic at the opening EC meeting. I want to ensure the policy is well understood and applied consistently across all our groups. To that end, Jonathan and Kathryn will make themselves to present the full slide deck for discussion and answer questions during your group plenary meetings. Please share the slide deck and allocate time to review during the November plenary session with your groups. ee-declaration-of-affiliation.Regards,--Paul---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.