Re: Update on new standards proposal

On 18 Oct 2010, at 10:32 AM, Andrew.Updegrove@gesmer.com wrote:

> 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.

There is a reason it's not included, which has to do with  
cannibalizing other sources revenues. I expect to have more on how  
community groups will interact with other types of groups very soon.

  _ Ian

>
> 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
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447

Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 15:36:03 UTC