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: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:38:27 +0900
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56B95123.7070701@w3.org>
(adding Ralph)

On 2/8/2016 23:03, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
> 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 <https://www.w3.org/2015/09/Process2.1Proposal.html>. 
>
>
> 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".
This is something Ralph proposed so adding him for comments.
>
> 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.
This is the meat of the problem.  Consortium's appoint people who show 
up and represent one company - their employer NOT the Consortium that 
appoints them.
>
> 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.
I think it's far more than just their voting.  I think it has to do with 
what their goals are for participating - i.e. taking knowledge to their 
employer who SHOULD BE A MEMBER and more challenging making technical 
contributions of IP from their EMPLOYER where there is not commitment 
for that IP being royalty free.
>
> 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.
We want to limit the non-employee participants of Consortia whose 
Members are Organizations to the direct employees of the Consortia, 
their appointed AC Rep and people in leadership roles in the Consortia.  
Right now that's not the case and we're having "revolving seats" from 
the Consortia.
>
> 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.
I'm of the position that if they are making IPR commitments from their 
EMPLOYER vs. the Consortia they are appointed by that we reject that IP 
and tell them to join to do it properly.   This may put a burden on the 
chairs but as Membership Fees are in fact over 75% of our revenue (not 
sure of exact percentage right now) we need to protect that revenue stream.
>
> 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;
>>     <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>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>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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

-- 
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 Tuesday, 9 February 2016 02:38:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 February 2016 02:38:44 UTC