Re: Webizen progress and next meeting

On 8/6/2014 4:26 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2014 3:57 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/6/2014 2:43 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 6, 2014 1:54 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > So I can't tell.  Did my proposal accomplish this or fall short 
> of this?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Close I think.  I didn't see the presentation,
> >
> >
> > I wasn't talking about my June presentation (which was essentially 
> the previous wiki), I was referring to the way I was trying to find a 
> middle ground earlier in this thread.
> >
> >
>
> Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.  So the proposal is like my own, but the 
> charter review feedback isn't formally counter, but at the discretion 
> of the director?
>

Actually, all Charter review information is "formally" Advisory, even 
from the AC.  In practice we attempt to be quite considerate of input.

> What about votes?  Honestly  I'm a little dismayed by what appear to 
> be efforts to prevent folks who might be paying members from being 
> anything but.
>

This proposal does not propose that Webizens should be Members.  I 
believe that is Chaals' proposal.

>   In fact, even in current proposals this is asking individuals to 
> have way more "skin in the game" than 99% of current members (because 
> members are individuals and it costs them nothing, their member -org- 
> pays the bill and at that level, for many of them the price point is 
> often negligible). The incentives and disincentives toward "common 
> good" seem very at odds with what you'd think.  Maybe it's hard for me 
> to understand their position,
>

I think their position is that W3C Members pay a lot more than $100 to 
be Members.  You counter that it is not costing the individuals money 
(which is true), but they counter that it is not the individuals - but 
the organization that is the Member.

> I welcome any discussion here or off list (and off the record) from 
> any AC who feels they can articulate this better.  It would probably 
> be efficient than a telephone game anyway.
>