W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > October 2015

RE: Issue-163 Update of Members that are Consortia themselves

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:15:47 +0000
To: "J. Alan Bird" <abird@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY1PR02MB11140AD75AC7E0FD4CBBFC35AE200@BY1PR02MB1114.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
See Below

Steve Z



> -----Original Message-----

> From: J. Alan Bird [mailto:abird@w3.org]

> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 9:12 AM

> To: Stephen Zilles; public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>

> Subject: Re: Issue-163 Update of Members that are Consortia themselves

>

>

>

> On 9/10/2015 16:54, Stephen Zilles wrote:

> > Alan,

> > I am somewhat surprised by the wording change that you propose. After

> reading paragraph 5g of the Membership Agreement, it is important to note

> that this paragraph in the Process Document relaxes a prohibition in the

> Membership Agreement. That paragraph restricts Member Access solely to

> paid employees of the organization when it is a consortium, is a user society

> or has itself members or sponsors. This relaxation is particularly appropriate

> when there are no (or very few) paid employees of an organization, such as a

> informally organized user's group. As you noted in earlier e-mails, the

> relaxation is not so appropriate for consortiums of major corporations which

> themselves should (likely) be W3C Members. I do not see where that change

> you propose helps either of these groups.

> >

> > For example, the term "Leadership" would seem to be able to be abused.

> All you require is that the Organization document some "Leadership" role on

> the website. Would not that be satisfied by listing Liaisons to W3C as an

> official role. In the case of simple user's groups, such as the HTML Author's

> Guild was, requiring the participants to be part of the Leadership may not

> reflect the practical structure of the organization and might exclude better

> candidates for W3C participation than the Leadership of the organization. Of

> course, they, too, could simply list Liaisons.

> >

> > Could you provide more detail as to why you came up with the proposal

> you submitted?''

> Steve,

>    Thanks for your input.  My thought process was focused on those Consortia

> who have large organizations as their Members and participation of people

> in the four seats has not been done on behalf of the Consortia but rather

> with their own interests. Having talked to the Executive Directors and such of

> these Consortia I do not anticipate them simply adding titles to their Web

> pages to accommodate these practices as it calls into question what are those

> individuals doing for the Consortia that warrants such designations.

>

> For the type you recommend we may need to come up with a way

> differentiating them as they are fundamentally different in nature and our

> relationship with them should be somewhat more open although I think we

> still need to think about the IP issues.  While the participants may be

> Individuals if they are also employees of a corporation we'd need to make

> sure that their contributions were from the Consortia not the people that pay

> them.  I have not thought through what that would look like and would

> accept any input the CG wants to provide as a starting point.

[SZ] The Process Document TF met on 12 October and generated the following input to this discussion.



There seem to be four topics that needed to be addressed by a solution to this issue:

1.      There are two different kinds of "member organizations": those whose members are individuals and those whose members are organizations

2.      W3C Participation by a "member organization" is not intended to be an alternative to having the members of that organization join the W3C

3.      The IPR commitments made by representatives of “member organizations” that are W3C participants need to be consistent with their participation.

4.      As is currently the case, the AC Representative of an organization need not be an employee of that organization



Considering these in order:



Two kinds of “member organizations”.

For the remaining three topics, the answer is often different for each group kind. For example, “member organizations” whose members are individuals are often formed to allow the collection of individuals to (indirectly) belong to the W3C because they individually cannot afford the minimum W3C dues. They are more likely to have simpler IPR entanglements (not working for a company that should be a Member) and the Invited Expert IPR commitment is adequate for their participation within the W3C. And, some of those organization have no employees and the officers may not be the most relevant participants in the W3C. This suggests that the existing policy on participation for “member organizations”  is OK for this kind of organization.



In contrast, “member organizations” that have members that are organizations potentially have organizations that could be and should be W3C Members. Furthermore, these organizations are likely to have IPR that should be subject to the Patent Policy requirements in the Working Groups in which the “member organization” representatives participate. For these “member organizations”, restricting participation to their AC Representative and (3 or 4) other officers of the organization may be a reasonable. This restriction does not, however, deal with the IPR considerations for their contributions. For this group, the Invited Expert rules for IPR do not seem adequate. Your proposed text modifying section 2.1.1 of the Process Document says, “these individuals must represent the broad interests of the W3C Member organization and not the particular interests of their employers.” I am not at all sure how this would be enforced nor how the representatives would control their contributions in this manner.)  I (not necessarily the Task Force) think that more thought is needed in this area.



With respect to “hired” AC Representatives (topic 4, above), some of the IPR issues are the same, especially when the “hired” AC Representative works for a large organization. But, restricting the participation of the Member’s key representative does not seem to make sense so the provision that allow employees and the AC Representative to participate as they would for any Member seems reasonable.



Next steps:



The second paragraph of your re-write of section 2.1.1 says,

“Such an organization may also designate up to four (or more at the Team’s discretion) non-employee individuals who may exercise the rights of Member representatives. All such designated representatives must be part of the Member organization’s Leadership (as documented on the Member organization’s Web site) and must disclose their employment affiliations when participating in W3C work. Provisions for related Members apply. Furthermore, these individuals must represent the broad interests of the W3C Member organization and not the particular interests of their employers.”



I would propose the following re-write of that paragraph:

“Such an organization may also designate up to four (or more at the Team’s discretion) non-employee individuals who may exercise the rights of Member representatives. For organizations all of whose members are individuals these designated representatives may be any members of the organization. For organizations that have at least one member that is an organization, all such designated representatives must be part of the Member organization’s Leadership (as documented on the Member organization’s Web site). In both cases, the designated representatives must disclose their employment affiliations when participating in W3C work and provisions for related Members apply. “



But I think the following sentence needs revisions (in a manner that I cannot suggest at this point)..

“Furthermore, these individuals must represent the broad interests of the W3C Member organization and not the particular interests of their employers.”



Steve Zilles

>

> Unfortunately I've had something arise over the weekend that will probably

> keep me from being able to participate in the call on Monday so sending

> probable regrets.

>

>

> >

> > Steve Z

> >

> >> -----Original Message-----

> >> From: J. Alan Bird [mailto:abird@w3.org]

> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 5:27 AM

> >> To: public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>

> >> Subject: Issue-163 Update of Members that are Consortia themselves

> >>

> >> CG Members,

> >>      I have put together this page [1] to propose language that we

> >> should use to clarify the participation of Members that are Consortia

> >> themselves.  It also has a minor change that we need to make to

> >> address the Introductory Industry Membership level we introduced a

> >> couple of years ago.  This language has been reviewed and approved by

> >> Jeff, Ralph, Wendy and I.  It is also being submitted to W3M for discussion

> on 09 Sept 2015.

> >>

> >> If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me and

> >> I'll follow this both on e-mail as well as during future CG calls.

> >>

> >> Cheers,

> >>

> >> Alan

> >>

> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/09/Process2.1Proposal.html


> >>

> >> --

> >> J. Alan Bird

> >> W3C Global Business Development Leader office +1 617 253 7823  mobile

> >> +1 978 335 0537

> >> abird@w3.org<mailto:abird@w3.org>   twitter @jalanbird

> >>

>

> --

> J. Alan Bird

> W3C Global Business Development Leader

> office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537

> abird@w3.org<mailto:abird@w3.org>   twitter @jalanbird


Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 09:16:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 09:16:25 UTC