Re: IDPF, TPI, PBG members

On 2018-10-05 10:27 AM, McCloy-Kelley, Liisa wrote:
> 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 believe that would be sufficient.  I suggest that the Board consider 
limiting the authorization to just the release of the organization name 
and its "in good standing" or "not in good standing" status.

-Ralph

> 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 14:50:45 UTC