W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > August 2016

Re: Define "Affiliate Member"

From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 14:33:29 -0700
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-id: <CBEFF5C7-4BF6-45E3-9D46-59A4E5A1749E@mac.com>
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
You’re right, my mistake.

in the 2001 process it’s linked, but after that, it floats free

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/organization.html#Organization

> On Aug 11, 2016, at 13:06 , Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Actually the term is used in Section 2 of process documents back to at least 1998.  (note that older process documents were broken up into separate files so simply searching the representation of the top level URI isn’t sufficient). It used to be “defined” by reference to the Affiliate Member Agreement but that link disappeared between 2001 and 2003, perhaps when the two member agreement documents were merged in 2003.  See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Agreement/.
> 
> But the term “affiliate member” was removed from the 2005 membership agreement and a link to the fee table http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees was added.   
> 
> There are two references to Affiliate Members in the current PD. One says “W3C does not have a class of membership tailored to, or priced for individuals. However, an individual may join W3C as an Affiliate Member.”  That is a substantive distinction between Affiliate and other classes of membership. The second mandates a report about the number of full and affiliate members at AC meetings.  I’d be fine with changing the second to ask for a report on the number of members (of each fee class), or dropping it as unnecessary detail for the PD.
> 
> BTW, the Team should pay more attention to the Director’s feelings about the permanence of URIs http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI – lots of 404s came up following links to old process docs and membership agreements ☺
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
> Date: Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 12:14 PM
> To: "jeff@w3.org" <jeff@w3.org>
> Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Define "Affiliate Member"
> Resent-From: <public-w3process@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 12:15 PM
> 
> 
>> On Aug 11, 2016, at 11:14 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/9/2016 1:34 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>> On Aug 8, 2016, at 21:21 , Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The term "Affiliate Member" is used in a couple of places in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html, but does not seem to be defined anywhere.
>>>> 
>>> This is embarrassing; timeless asked for this to be linked back in August 2014 and we didn’t do it.  The term was not in the 2005 process document, it was new in 2014/15.
>>> 
>>> <http://www.w3.org/mid/20140812224415.25579611.4250.1975@gmail.com>
>>> 
>>> Perhaps we didn’t know what to link it to?  The closest I can find is in the FAQ <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/membership-faq#individual> but the term ‘affiliate’ is not used there.
>>> 
>>> Can anyone provide better traceback of how this crope in?
>> 
>> Imho, it would serve us well if we dropped all references to Full and Affiliate, and simply used the word Member.
>> 
> 
>    Agreed, but I was worried that this was recently introduced and we clearly meant something. But what?
> 
>    Dave Singer
> 
>    singer@mac.com
> 
> 
> 
> 

Dave Singer

singer@mac.com
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2016 21:33:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 11 August 2016 21:33:59 UTC