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

RE: IDPF, TPI, PBG members

From: George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 07:32:54 -0600
To: "'AUDRAIN LUC'" <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>, "'Ralph Swick'" <swick@w3.org>, "'McCloy-Kelley, Liisa'" <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>
Cc: "'W3C Publishing Steering Committee'" <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>, "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000b01d45f0b$6b3966f0$41ac34d0$@montana.com>
I can contact the IDPF executive Board and ask if it is OK for Ralph to release to the PBG Sc for the names of the organizations that made up the IDPF and if they are in good standing.

Best
George


-----Original Message-----
From: AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr> 
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 4:23 AM
To: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>; McCloy-Kelley, Liisa <lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>; Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: IDPF, TPI, PBG members

Hi,

Thank you Ralph, I agree with the perimeter.

For my information, can some of you tell me how the IDPF board will be
contacted and will take that decision?

Best,
Luc



Le 05/10/2018 16:50, « Ralph Swick » <swick@w3.org> a écrit :

>
>
>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 I¹ve extracted from
>>the IDPF
>>      > Web site !
>>      > If you still have that file with ³good standing² members, I¹d
>>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
>>accountingï¿1Ž2
>>      >     > I donï¿1Ž2t 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, ï¿1Ž2 Dave Cramer ï¿1Ž2 a ï¿1Ž2crit : > >>
>>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 >>> groupsï¿1Ž2 >>> >>> >>>
>>TPI
>>      >     members can join the PWG, so that is not a discriminating
>>factorï¿1Ž2
>>      >      >>> >>> 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 Monday, 8 October 2018 13:33:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 8 October 2018 13:33:42 UTC