RE: Definition of a Member Consortium in section

I think the change you suggest below (adding officers to paid staff) is a significant, un-reviewed change. Especaily, since for Member Consortia that have non-individual members, the 4 designated representatives are limited to official representatives of the organization (e.g. officers) that effectively removes the restriction to 4 such representatives if there are more than 4 officers. I suggest that we fix the issue you are concerned about in the next revision of the process and not make such a big change now.

Steve Z

From: []
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 12:10 PM
To: Virginia Fournier <>; J.Alan Bird <>
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <>; Stephen Zilles <>;;
Subject: Re: Definition of a Member Consortium in section

I've put a lightly edited version of the text into my draft, which I hope to have done by tomorrow. I also noted officers and staff get the rights - because there are consortia whose officers are all unpaid, but who participate substantially in work.


10.10.2016, 20:35, "Virginia Fournier" <<>>:
Hi Chaals,

We want it to be clear that a corporation such as Apple would not be considered to be a “Member Consortium” because it has shareholders.  So we support the updated language.  If there’s another way to clarify this point, we’re open to considering it.

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595

On Oct 10, 2016, at 7:02 AM, J. Alan Bird <<>> wrote:

On 10/10/2016 09:09,<> wrote:
The whole change proposal looks editorial to me.

Personally I hate it as over-legalistic, unnecessarily complex, and unnecessary given the fundamentals of process. But I was under the impression Alan had seen it and didn't see a substantive difference.

10.10.2016, 14:40, "Jeff Jaffe" <><>:


The proposal to update the process vis-a-vis Member Consortia came from Alan Bird.  Are you aware if he has reviewed David's proposal?


On 10/10/2016 12:50 AM, Stephen Zilles wrote:

We must decide on the proposal by David Singer that we will replace the first paragraph of section Membership Consortia which now reads,

“If the Member is itself a consortium, user society, or otherwise has members or sponsors, as described in paragraph 5g of the Membership Agreement and hereafter called a "Member Consortium" the rights and privileges of W3C Membership granted by W3C Process extend to the organization's paid staff and Advisory Committee representative.”


‘A “Member Consortium” means a consortium, user society, or association<> of two or more individuals,<> companies<>, organizations<> or governments<> (or any combination of these entities) with the objective of participating in a common activity or pooling their resources to achieve a common goal (other than participation in, or achieving certain goals in, W3C).  A corporation does not qualify as a “Consortium” merely because it has shareholders or stockholders.  If it is not clear whether a prospective Member qualifies as a Member Consortium, the Director may reasonably make the determination. For a Member Consortium, the rights and privileges of W3C Membership described in the W3C Process Document extend to the Member Consortium’s paid staff and Advisory Committee representative.’

to more clearly distinguish a Consortium from an organization with shareholders (a.k.a. a company).

Note, other changes to have been suggested, but this change is solely aimed at clarifying what constitutes a Member Consortium. It does not change the rights, privileges and responsibilities of such organizations.

Steve Z

Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex<> - - - Find more at<>


J. Alan Bird

W3C Global Business Development Leader

office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537<>   twitter @jalanbird

Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex<> - - - Find more at

Received on Monday, 10 October 2016 21:56:52 UTC