Re: Update on new standards proposal

Ian, on the revenue ideas:  I notice that you don't include sponsorship as 
a means for funding a new group.  I expect that often it may be easier to 
find a single company that may be willing to fund the project, and I 
expect that more often than not, that company will already be a member. 
Was this not included for a reason (i.e., it doesn't seem desirable for 
some reason?)  The extra memberships may follow if those non-members that 
participate have a good experience, and get a chance to learn more about 
W3C in the process.

Andy

public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org wrote on 10/14/2010 06:28:02 PM:

> Hello all,
> 
> I come bearing pretty good news!
> 
> Here's an update on the new standards task force proposal [1] 
> following W3C's annual management meeting. The purpose of that meeting 
> was to prioritize and select from among the many proposals produced by 
> all five of the task forces created by the CEO (including this one). 
> Here are the results. I welcome your comments, questions, etc.
> 
>   _ Ian
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community
> 
> =============
> On the proposal
> 
> This proposal is *approved* ... in part. Congratulations to the task 
> force for a job well done. This is likely to have a big positive 
> effect on W3C.
> 
> Pending discussion with the Advisory Committee the first week of 
> November, W3C will fund part of it and W3C will start to implement it. 
> That's going to mean:
> 
>    - Hammering out the details of the proposal, probably with some 
> process document edits
>    - Same with the IPR policy: http://www.w3.org/2010/09/newstdipr.html
> 
> The parts that will *not* be funded with funds available today are:
> 
>      - Infrastructure
>        http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community#infrastructure
> 
>      - Developer portal
>        http://www.w3.org/2010/07/community#portal
> 
> People liked these proposals a lot, but they liked others (of the 100 
> or so we started with) even more.
> 
> I am likely to begin seeking additional funding for at least one of 
> these, because I think they are important to the success of the 
> program overall. Let me know if you'd like to talk more about that.
> 
> ==============
> On revenue ideas
> 
> I have also been discussing the relationship between this proposal and 
> a related, revenue-bearing proposal for something we are calling 
> "business groups." The idea is this:
> 
>     - If you want to create a group rapidly and need very little W3C 
> staff involvement, a community group is the way to go.
>     - If you want extra benefits but no ongoing staff contact, then 
> Members can create a business group and non-Members can participate 
> for a fee that is a fraction of the regular W3C Membership dues. The 
> extra benefits (in the draft proposal) include some periodic 
> consulting from the W3C staff, and the opportunity to work in a forum 
> that is publicly readable but not writable.
>     - If you want significant staff resource investment, then W3C 
> expects large organizations to support W3C through Membership dues, 
> whether their work will be on the standards track (Working Group) or 
> not (Interest Group).
> 
> Thus, there will be some new options for participation (for new 
> audiences) with different price tags and sets of benefits. We are 
> still working those out but I wanted to let you know where we stand.
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
> 
> 
> 

See the new Gesmer.com http://www.gesmer.com

_____________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein   
   (including any attachments) is not intended to be and        
   cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding
   tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. (The
   foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S.
   Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)<br><br>
                                                             
   Electronic mail from Gesmer Updegrove LLP, 40 Broad       
   Street, Boston, MA 02109. Voice: (617) 350-6800, Fax:     
   (617) 350-6878. This communication is intended only for   
   the use of the individual or entity named as the          
   addressee. It may contain information which is privileged
   and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not
   the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or
   agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
   copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly
   prohibited. If you have received this communication in
   error, please immediately notify Christopher O'Sullivan at
   (617) 350-6800 and notify the sender by electronic mail.
   Please expunge this communication without making any
   copies. Thank you for your cooperation.