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

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

From: J. Alan Bird <abird@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:13:28 +0900
To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56B83208.9020709@w3.org>
Steve and company,
    I've taken my next shot at the language and THINK I have everything 
we need in the current version.  As a reminder it is located here 
<https://www.w3.org/2015/09/Process2.1Proposal.html>.

Team-Legal,
    I've modified this and believe I've only added clarity not made any 
substantial changes but would REALLY like a review and opinion from you 
about this.

Cheers,

Alan

On 10/29/2015 18:15, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> 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
>

-- 
J. Alan Bird
W3C Global Business Development Leader
office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537
abird@w3.org   twitter @jalanbird
Received on Monday, 8 February 2016 06:13:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 8 February 2016 06:13:44 UTC