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

Re: [External] Re: IDPF, TPI, PBG members

From: Johnson, Rick <Rick.Johnson@vitalsource.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:19:00 +0000
To: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, "McCloy-Kelley, Liisa" <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>, AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>
CC: W3C Publishing Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Message-ID: <055F82F7-A845-477E-B6D6-E6A5DD4EAFF2@ingramcontent.com>
Because the transfer of membership has happened, and there has been no solicitation of dues this past year (the qualification for being in good standing), we should state that an organization WAS in good standing as of last December (or WAS not).


Rick Johnson | Vice President, Product Strategy
VitalSource Technologies, LLC
get.vitalsource.com <https://get.vitalsource.com/>


From: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Friday, October 5, 2018 at 7:50 AM
To: "McCloy-Kelley, Liisa" <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>, AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>
Cc: W3C Publishing Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: [External] Re: IDPF, TPI, PBG members
Resent-From: <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Friday, October 5, 2018 at 7:50 AM



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<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/<http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> >>> mobile:
> > +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704<https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
> > >>> > >
> >
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 5 October 2018 15:19:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 5 October 2018 15:19:33 UTC