RE: Definition of a Member Consortium in section 2.1.2.1

I continue to object to the change to the agreed text. See comments inline below.

Steve Z

From: J. Alan Bird [mailto:abird@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:23 AM
To: chaals@yandex-team.ru; Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>; Virginia Fournier <vfournier@apple.com>
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>; Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org>; public-w3process@w3.org; ab@w3.org
Subject: Re: Definition of a Member Consortium in section 2.1.2.1




On 10/11/2016 07:04, chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

10.10.2016, 23:56, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com><mailto:szilles@adobe.com>:

Chaals,

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.
Where does the limit of 4 come from?
This is a legacy number and has been there for at least the 5+ years I've been here.

SZ: This number and the following paragraph have appeared (unchanged as far as I can tell) in every version of the Process Document since 1999 [1]

“In the case (described in paragraph 5g of the Full and Affiliate Member Agreements), where a Member organization is itself a consortium, user society, or otherwise has members or sponsors, the organization's paid staff and Advisory Committee representative will exercise all the rights and privileges of W3C Membership. In addition, the Advisory Committee representative may designate up to four (or more at the Director's discretion) unpaid agents from the organization who will exercise Membership”

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/organization.html#Members


Why does a consortium need to *pay* people before they are eligible to participate in W3C work, and how does this translate for the numerous not-for-profit organisations who have been active members over more or less the lifetime of W3C?
I'm not hung up on the *pay* aspect as long as they are official representatives of the organization vs. just a Member of the other Consortia.

SZ: the issue is not, in my mind, whether the Consortia need to *pay* people, but that this change has not been discussed and publicized and is substantive. Since the document has been this way for over 17 years, there seems little need to make such a change without adequate discussion in public (and not just Alan although his opinion is important). I did not push some of the changes that I thought were important but had not had prior open review. I see no need to make this one now without review.

I had discussed this with Alan before proposing it. I do not think it is a significant change, since it reflects actual practice, and as far as I can tell the intent of the restrictions.

cheers



Steve Z



From: chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 12:10 PM
To: Virginia Fournier <vfournier@apple.com<mailto:vfournier@apple.com>>; J.Alan Bird <abird@w3.org<mailto:abird@w3.org>>
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org<mailto:jeff@w3.org>>; Stephen Zilles <steve@zilles.org<mailto:steve@zilles.org>>; public-w3process@w3.org<mailto:public-w3process@w3.org>; ab@w3.org<mailto:ab@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Definition of a Member Consortium in section 2.1.2.1



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.



cheers





10.10.2016, 20:35, "Virginia Fournier" <vfournier@apple.com<mailto:vfournier@apple.com>>:

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

✉︎ vmf@apple.com<mailto:vmf@apple.com>











On Oct 10, 2016, at 7:02 AM, J. Alan Bird <abird@w3.org<mailto:abird@w3.org>> wrote:



On 10/10/2016 09:09, chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> 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.

correct






10.10.2016, 14:40, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org><mailto:jeff@w3.org>:

Steve,

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?

Jeff



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 2.1.2.1 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.”



WITH



‘A “Member Consortium” means a consortium, user society, or association<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association> of two or more individuals,<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals> companies<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies>, organizations<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizations> or governments<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government> (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 2.1.2.1 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
chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> - - - Find more at http://yandex.com<http://yandex.com/>





--

J. Alan Bird

W3C Global Business Development Leader

office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537

abird@w3.org<mailto:abird@w3.org>   twitter @jalanbird







--

Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> - - - Find more at http://yandex.com<http://yandex.com/>




--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> - - - Find more at http://yandex.com





--

J. Alan Bird

W3C Global Business Development Leader

office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537

abird@w3.org<mailto:abird@w3.org>   twitter @jalanbird