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

Hi Alan, all

On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 07:13:28 +0100, J. Alan Bird <abird@w3.org> wrote:

> Steve and company,

(That includes you, as a member of the group ;) ).

>
>   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.

A few points.

Regarding the Introductory Membership changes, it seems that W3C is  
effectively offering restrictive memberships in certain cases, e.g. lower  
price for fewer privileges. Allowing this provides a general mechanism for  
different classes of membership, but I suggest the text we use be "subject  
to further restrictions included in the membership agreement".

For representatives of a Consortium, I think we're not quite there.

1. For the most part W3C doesn't accord numeric value to vote on issues of  
substance. The exceptions are elections for TAG and AB - while I think  
those cases matter I propose we handle the Working Group case first.

We currently have in the Process Document itself (section 5.2.1)

"A participant must represent at most one organization in a Working Group  
or Interest Group."

So the constraint in your proposed text: " and not the particular  
interests of their employers." (first and second bullets, end of the last  
sentence) seems redundant at best. I propose we remove it.

In principle, people could represent one or more organisations when they  
participate in W3C. I think the most extreme case I can recall from real  
W3C history was a W3C Fellow, who was therefore both a member of the Team  
and a representative of a Member organisation that employed him, and who  
furthermore represented his own company which was also a Member.  
Pretending that somebody cannot provide information from their various  
perspectives seems counter-productive, so in terms of presenting the  
perspectives of multiple organisations it seems perfectly reasonable that  
one person represent multiple perspectives.

There is a separate issue in which I propose we remove the constraint on  
people representing more than one organisation, but I do recognise that  
people appointed through a member consortium should primarily represent  
the consortium in terms of "voting", so I think the broad thrust of your  
proposal makes good sense.

2. I would make the ponts about representation etc apply to all  
representatives of the consortium. It is not unusual for a Consortium to  
have officers who are employees of one or other member - perhaps paid by  
the consortium, perhaps on secondment - consider for example W3C fellows.

3. If Consortia participate in technical work, the problem of IPR is  
pretty hairy. I think it is reasonable to expect that if someone's  
employer has asked them to represent a Consortium of which they are a  
part, that representative comes with an IPR commitment from both the  
Consortium *and* their employer. I realise this is a potential  
disincentive, but allowing people to bypass a commitment from their  
empoyer by being nominated through a consortium strikes me as the sort of  
case for which we *want* to provide disincentives.

cheers

Chaals

> 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
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>> >> 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   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
>>
>>
>
> --J. Alan Bird
> W3C Global Business Development Leader
> office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537
> abird@w3.org   twitter @jalanbird



-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com