W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publishing-sc@w3.org > October 2018

Re: IDPF, TPI, PBG members

From: McCloy-Kelley, Liisa <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:27:47 +0000
To: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>
CC: W3C Publishing Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0DBCDDD6-C982-49B0-87F1-D0E309933A0B@penguinrandomhouse.com>
Ralph-

Who do you think would need to give the authorization to share that information? 

Would it make sense for the IDPF Board to approve that? I don't think there would be objection there. 

Liisa

On 10/5/18, 6:52 AM, "Ralph Swick" <swick@w3.org> wrote:

    On 2018-10-05 04:04 AM, AUDRAIN LUC wrote:
    > Hi Ralph,
    > 
    > 128 is much less than the 388 in the list I’ve extracted from the IDPF 
    > Web site !
    > If you still have that file with “good standing” members, I’d rather 
    > start from it as it would more accurate and less deceptive...
    
    I'm not certain that I have authorization to share that information.
    
    -Ralph
    
    > Thanks
    > Luc
    > 
    > Obtenez Outlook pour iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:16 PM +0200, "Ralph Swick" <swick@w3.org 
    > <mailto:swick@w3.org>> wrote:
    > 
    >     On 2018-10-01 02:21 PM, AUDRAIN LUC wrote:
    >     > This list should be from annual membership paid.
    >     > But I did pick it form the Web site and not from accounting�
    >     > I don�t know who can still access to the last official members list.
    > 
    >     Only IDPF Members "in good standing" were eligible for the W3C TPI
    >     Member program.  "Good standing" was determined by the IDPF treasurer;
    >     W3C understood it to be those whose IDPF member fees were not in
    >     arrears.  There were 128 such IDPF members.  I received that list,
    >     however as the TPI program is ending I see little relevance in reviewing
    >     which organizations were "in good standing" with IDPF back at that time.
    > 
    >     > Luc
    >     > 
    >     > 
    >     > Le 01/10/2018 17:42, � Dave Cramer � a �crit : > >> Do we know more about the criteria for inclusion on
    >     the IDPF members >> list? Were these current, paid-up members at the
    >     time of the merger? >> >> One of them (Funkerz Publishing Research)
    >     is actually a service where >> students who don't want to write
    >     their papers pay someone else to do >> it :) >> >> On Mon, Oct 1,
    >     2018 at 11:27 AM Ivan Herman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1 Oct 2018,
    >     at 17:03, AUDRAIN LUC wrote: >>> >>> Hi PBG SC, >>> >>> Here is a
    >     collated Excel file form the 3 lists : IDPF, TPI and PBG. >>> >>>
    >     Sorry for my ignorance, but could someone bring me light on the >>>
    >     differences between TPI and PBG lists ? >>> - Some PBG members are
    >     not listed in TPI. >>> Is it because they are W3C full members (the
    >     case of Adobe, Hachette, >>> for instance)? >>> >>> >>> Yes or W3C
    >     members that joined W3C on a Business Group level. >>> >>> Or they
    >     registered to the PBG not through the TPI process? >>> >>> Also some
    >     TPI members are not in PBG. >>> They may be in PWG, but most of the
    >     are nowhere in our Publsihnig@W3C >>> groups� >>> >>> >>> TPI
    >     members can join the PWG, so that is not a discriminating factor�
    >      >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> >>> To be discussed. >>> >>> Luc >>> >>>
    >      >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Publishing@W3C Technical
    >     Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile:
    >     +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704

    >      >>> > >
    > 
    
    

Received on Friday, 5 October 2018 14:28:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 5 October 2018 14:28:15 UTC