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

Stephen Zilles wrote:
> 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.

Steve is right on all of these points, so please don't read my "seems
reasonable" as a +1 :(

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

+1

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 19:44:10 UTC