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

On 9/10/2015 16:54, Stephen Zilles wrote:
> 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?''
   Thanks for your input.  My thought process was focused on those 
Consortia who have large organizations as their Members and 
participation of people in the four seats has not been done on behalf of 
the Consortia but rather  with their own interests. Having talked to the 
Executive Directors and such of these Consortia I do not anticipate them 
simply adding titles to their Web pages to accommodate these practices 
as it calls into question what are those individuals doing for the 
Consortia that warrants such designations.

For the type you recommend we may need to come up with a way 
differentiating them as they are fundamentally different in nature and 
our relationship with them should be somewhat more open although I think 
we still need to think about the IP issues.  While the participants may 
be Individuals if they are also employees of a corporation we'd need to 
make sure that their contributions were from the Consortia not the 
people that pay them.  I have not thought through what that would look 
like and would accept any input the CG wants to provide as a starting 

Unfortunately I've had something arise over the weekend that will 
probably keep me from being able to participate in the call on Monday so 
sending probable regrets.

> Steve Z
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: J. Alan Bird []
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 5:27 AM
>> To:
>> 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]
>> --
>> J. Alan Bird
>> W3C Global Business Development Leader
>> office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537
>>   twitter @jalanbird

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

Received on Monday, 14 September 2015 00:12:10 UTC