- From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 18:32:38 +0100
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Yeah, this part is actually covered under "related members", but is an example of where someone can reasonably represent both their own organisation and its large client which is a W3C member… 07.11.2016, 18:29, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>: > On 07/11/2016 16:15, Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker > wrote: >> w3process-ISSUE-175 (multiple hats?): Can a group member represent more than one organisation? [Process Document] >> >> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/175 >> >> Raised by: Charles McCathie Nevile >> On product: Process Document >> >> Section 5.2.1 of the process includes the following requirement: >> >> [[[ >> A participant MUST represent at most one organization in a Working Group or Interest Group. >> ]]] >> >> In practice this is sometimes applied for voting and otherwise seems irrelevant - participants tend to represent whatever they know, and a number of them, claim not to represent even the organisation that sponsored them to join, just providing opinions on the issues. >> >> Propose to remove the restriction as unnecessary. > > And there are some WG Members that are employed by a Member itself > contracting for another Member in the same WG. Happens all the time, > is usually solved by sending a disclosure message to the Group. > I would recommend that way of doing. > > Disclaimer: happened to me several times in the past in the CSS WG. > > </Daniel> -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 7 November 2016 17:33:15 UTC