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

Re: Definition of a Member Consortium in section 2.1.2.1

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 08:32:49 -0400
To: Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org>, chaals@yandex-team.ru, 'Stephen Zilles' <szilles@adobe.com>, "'J. Alan Bird'" <abird@w3.org>, 'Virginia Fournier' <vfournier@apple.com>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org, ab@w3.org
Message-ID: <1a491ef8-c754-b78b-a201-c49965993f7c@w3.org>
Chaals,

Could you please revert the change that Steve objects to so that we may 
proceed with the AB ballot?  Thanks.

Jeff


On 10/12/2016 12:25 AM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
> One objection does not cause a change. I have made a number of 
> objections that have not caused changes. We have an agreed text. 
> Please use it. We can discuss other changes in a future Process Document.
>
> Also, the agreed text is not arbitrary; it perpetuates a text that has 
> been there for 17 years. Without adequate time to have an informed 
> discussion, last minute, un-reviewed changes are not appropriate. This 
> has been said about a number of suggested changes that were made late 
> in the review process. For example, we agreed not to try to fix the 
> “Affiliate Member” problem.
>
> And, yes, you did send this proposed change to the mailing list, but, 
> as far as I know, there was no support for your change and I, for one, 
> did not oppose it at the time because there was no support. I only 
> opposed it when you introduced it after all the relevant groups (AB 
> and ProcessCG) had met without having discussed this change.
>
> Steve Z
>
> *From:*chaals@yandex-team.ru [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:11 PM
> *To:* Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>; J. Alan Bird <abird@w3.org>; 
> Virginia Fournier <vfournier@apple.com>
> *Cc:* Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>; Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org>; 
> public-w3process@w3.org; ab@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Definition of a Member Consortium in section 2.1.2.1
>
> I continue to object to the apparently agreed text. See comments at 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016Sep/att-0024/00-part when 
> this *was* discussed on the mailing list.
>
> As noted in 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016Sep/0027.html I 
> believe the idea that 4 people can be added by any organisation is 
> both arbitrary, and irrelevant to this particular case.
>
> cheers
>
> 11.10.2016, 20:05, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com 
> <mailto:szilles@adobe.com>>:
>
>     I continue to object to the change to the agreed text. See
>     comments inline below.
>
>     Steve Z
>
>     *From:*J. Alan Bird [mailto:abird@w3.org <mailto:abird@w3.org>]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:23 AM
>     *To:* chaals@yandex-team.ru <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>;
>     Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com <mailto:szilles@adobe.com>>;
>     Virginia Fournier <vfournier@apple.com <mailto:vfournier@apple.com>>
>     *Cc:* Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org <mailto:jeff@w3.org>>; Stephen
>     Zilles <steve@zilles.org <mailto:steve@zilles.org>>;
>     public-w3process@w3.org <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>;
>     ab@w3.org <mailto:ab@w3.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: Definition of a Member Consortium in section 2.1.2.1
>
>     On 10/11/2016 07:04, chaals@yandex-team.ru
>     <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>
>         10.10.2016, 23:56, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>
>         <mailto:szilles@adobe.com>:
>
>             Chaals,
>
>             I think the change you suggest below (adding officers to
>             paid staff) is a significant, un-reviewed change.
>             Especaily, since for Member Consortia that have
>             non-individual members, the 4 designated representatives
>             are limited to official representatives of the
>             organization (e.g. officers) that effectively removes the
>             restriction to 4 such representatives if there are more
>             than 4 officers. I suggest that we fix the issue you are
>             concerned about in the next revision of the process and
>             not make such a big change now.
>
>         Where does the limit of 4 come from?
>
>     This is a legacy number and has been there for at least the 5+
>     years I've been here.
>
>     SZ: This number and the following paragraph have appeared
>     (unchanged as far as I can tell) in every version of the Process
>     Document since 1999 [1]
>
>     “In the case (described in paragraph 5g of the Full and Affiliate
>     Member Agreements), where a Member organization is itself a
>     consortium, user society, or otherwise has members or sponsors,
>     the organization's paid staff and Advisory Committee
>     representative will exercise all the rights and privileges of W3C
>     Membership. In addition, the Advisory Committee representative may
>     designate up to four (or more at the Director's discretion) unpaid
>     agents from the organization who will exercise Membership”
>
>
>     [1]
>     http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/organization.html#Members
>
>
>         Why does a consortium need to *pay* people before they are
>         eligible to participate in W3C work, and how does this
>         translate for the numerous not-for-profit organisations who
>         have been active members over more or less the lifetime of W3C?
>
>     I'm not hung up on the *pay* aspect as long as they are official
>     representatives of the organization vs. just a Member of the other
>     Consortia.
>
>     SZ: the issue is not, in my mind, whether the Consortia need to
>     **pay** people, but that this change has not been discussed and
>     publicized and is substantive. Since the document has been this
>     way for over 17 years, there seems little need to make such a
>     change without adequate discussion in public (and not just Alan
>     although his opinion is important). I did not push some of the
>     changes that I thought were important but had not had prior open
>     review. I see no need to make this one now without review.
>
>         I had discussed this with Alan before proposing it. I do not
>         think it is a significant change, since it reflects actual
>         practice, and as far as I can tell the intent of the restrictions.
>
>         cheers
>
>             Steve Z
>
>             *From:*chaals@yandex-team.ru
>             <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>
>             [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>]
>             *Sent:* Monday, October 10, 2016 12:10 PM
>             *To:* Virginia Fournier <vfournier@apple.com
>             <mailto:vfournier@apple.com>>; J.Alan Bird <abird@w3.org
>             <mailto:abird@w3.org>>
>             *Cc:* Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org <mailto:jeff@w3.org>>;
>             Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org
>             <mailto:steve@zilles.org>>; public-w3process@w3.org
>             <mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>; ab@w3.org <mailto:ab@w3.org>
>             *Subject:* Re: Definition of a Member Consortium in
>             section 2.1.2.1
>
>             I've put a lightly edited version of the text into my
>             draft, which I hope to have done by tomorrow. I also noted
>             officers and staff get the rights - because there are
>             consortia whose officers are all unpaid, but who
>             participate substantially in work.
>
>             cheers
>
>             10.10.2016, 20:35, "Virginia Fournier"
>             <vfournier@apple.com <mailto:vfournier@apple.com>>:
>
>                 Hi Chaals,
>
>                 We want it to be clear that a corporation such as
>                 Apple would not be considered to be a “Member
>                 Consortium” because it has shareholders.  So we
>                 support the updated language.  If there’s another way
>                 to clarify this point, we’re open to considering it.
>
>                 Best regards,
>
>                 Virginia Fournier
>
>                 Senior Standards Counsel
>
>                  Apple Inc.
>
>                 ☏669-227-9595
>
>                 ✉︎ vmf@apple.com <mailto:vmf@apple.com>
>
>                 On Oct 10, 2016, at 7:02 AM, J. Alan Bird
>                 <abird@w3.org <mailto:abird@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>
>                 On 10/10/2016 09:09, chaals@yandex-team.ru
>                 <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>
>                     The whole change proposal looks editorial to me.
>
>                     Personally I hate it as over-legalistic,
>                     unnecessarily complex, and unnecessary given the
>                     fundamentals of process. But I was under the
>                     impression Alan had seen it and didn't see a
>                     substantive difference.
>
>                 correct
>
>                     10.10.2016, 14:40, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>
>                     <mailto:jeff@w3.org>:
>
>                         Steve,
>
>                         The proposal to update the process vis-a-vis
>                         Member Consortia came from Alan Bird.  Are you
>                         aware if he has reviewed David's proposal?
>
>                         Jeff
>
>                         On 10/10/2016 12:50 AM, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>
>                             We must decide on the proposal by David
>                             Singer that we will replace the first
>                             paragraph of section 2.1.2.1 Membership
>                             Consortia which now reads,
>
>                             “If the Member is itself a consortium,
>                             user society, or otherwise has members or
>                             sponsors, as described in paragraph 5g of
>                             the Membership Agreement and hereafter
>                             called a "Member Consortium" the rights
>                             and privileges of W3C Membership granted
>                             by W3C Process extend to the
>                             organization's paid staff and Advisory
>                             Committee representative.”
>
>                             WITH
>
>                             ‘A “Member Consortium” means a consortium,
>                             user society, or association
>                             <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association> of
>                             two or more individuals,
>                             <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals>
>                             companies
>                             <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies>,
>                             organizations
>                             <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizations> or
>                             governments
>                             <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government> (or
>                             any combination of these entities) with
>                             the objective of participating in a common
>                             activity or pooling their resources to
>                             achieve a common goal (other than
>                             participation in, or achieving certain
>                             goals in, W3C).  A corporation does not
>                             qualify as a “Consortium” merely because
>                             it has shareholders or stockholders.  If
>                             it is not clear whether a prospective
>                             Member qualifies as a Member Consortium,
>                             the Director may reasonably make the
>                             determination. For a Member Consortium,
>                             the rights and privileges of W3C
>                             Membership described in the W3C Process
>                             Document extend to the Member Consortium’s
>                             paid staff and Advisory Committee
>                             representative.’
>
>                             to more clearly distinguish a Consortium
>                             from an organization with shareholders
>                             (a.k.a. a company).
>
>                             Note, other changes to 2.1.2.1 have been
>                             suggested, but this change is solely aimed
>                             at clarifying what constitutes a Member
>                             Consortium. It does not change the rights,
>                             privileges and responsibilities of such
>                             organizations.
>
>                             Steve Z
>
>                     -- 
>
>                     Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO
>                     Office, Yandex
>                     chaals@yandex-team.ru
>                     <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> - - - Find more at
>                     http://yandex.com <http://yandex.com/>
>
>
>                 -- 
>
>                 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
>
>             -- 
>
>             Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>             chaals@yandex-team.ru <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> - - -
>             Find more at http://yandex.com <http://yandex.com/>
>
>         -- 
>
>         Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>         chaals@yandex-team.ru <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> - - -
>         Find more at http://yandex.com <http://yandex.com/>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     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
>
> -- 
>
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> - - - Find more 
> at http://yandex.com
>
Received on Friday, 14 October 2016 12:32:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 14 October 2016 12:33:00 UTC