RE: Issue-163 Update of Members that are Consortia themselves

Alan,
I am somewhat surprised by the wording change that you propose. After reading paragraph 5g of the Membership Agreement, it is important to note that this paragraph in the Process Document relaxes a prohibition in the Membership Agreement. That paragraph restricts Member Access solely to paid employees of the organization when it is a consortium, is a user society or has itself members or sponsors. This relaxation is particularly appropriate when there are no (or very few) paid employees of an organization, such as a informally organized user's group. As you noted in earlier e-mails, the relaxation is not so appropriate for consortiums of major corporations which themselves should (likely) be W3C Members. I do not see where that change you propose helps either of these groups. 

For example, the term "Leadership" would seem to be able to be abused. All you require is that the Organization document some "Leadership" role on the website. Would not that be satisfied by listing Liaisons to W3C as an official role. In the case of simple user's groups, such as the HTML Author's Guild was, requiring the participants to be part of the Leadership may not reflect the practical structure of the organization and might exclude better candidates for W3C participation than the Leadership of the organization. Of course, they, too, could simply list Liaisons.

Could you provide more detail as to why you came up with the proposal you submitted?

Steve Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Alan Bird [mailto:abird@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 5:27 AM
> To: public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Issue-163 Update of Members that are Consortia themselves
> 
> CG Members,
>     I have put together this page [1] to propose language that we should use to
> clarify the participation of Members that are Consortia themselves.  It also
> has a minor change that we need to make to address the Introductory
> Industry Membership level we introduced a couple of years ago.  This
> language has been reviewed and approved by Jeff, Ralph, Wendy and I.  It is
> also being submitted to W3M for discussion on 09 Sept 2015.
> 
> If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me and I'll follow
> this both on e-mail as well as during future CG calls.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alan
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/09/Process2.1Proposal.html

> 
> --
> J. Alan Bird
> W3C Global Business Development Leader
> office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537
> abird@w3.org   twitter @jalanbird
>

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 20:55:23 UTC