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

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

From: Bill Kasdorf <kasdorf.bill@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:50:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CALhciFhasZRGnNg_0x+f4G+RpMgXAz6Ahcse8A0suq-yeq+NBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Johnson, Rick" <Rick.Johnson@vitalsource.com>
Cc: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, "Liisa'" <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>, Luc Audrain <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>, "PBG Steering Committee (Public)" <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
And I would suggest ONLY talking about members that were in good standing.
No reason to call attention to an organization not in good standing.

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:19 AM Johnson, Rick <Rick.Johnson@vitalsource.com>
wrote:

> 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>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >>> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

-- 
*Bill Kasdorf*
*Principal, Kasdorf & Associates, LLC*

*Founding Partner, Publishing Technology Partners
<https://pubtechpartners.com/>*
kasdorf.bill@gmail.com
+1 734-904-6252

ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786
<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>
Received on Friday, 5 October 2018 16:51:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 5 October 2018 16:51:03 UTC