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

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

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:19:44 +0900
Message-ID: <CACsW8eFggT9J5EDUxycivEAdtrvYDAqysL+grimj0Uf+3b1PFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Stephen Zilles wrote:
> 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

I wasn't able to attend, but I agree with this outline.

> 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.

we may be missing something that they must uphold the obligations too.
(some old text mentions "rights and privileges" but again is missing
obligations)

> 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.”

I can't think of how to help this text tonight.
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 11:20:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 11:20:12 UTC