Re: Consortium question

> On Sep 20, 2016, at 14:48 , chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> 20.09.2016, 15:34, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>:
>> David Singer’s paragraph replaces only the first paragraph of 2.1.2.1. The remaining paragraphs remain the same, so paragraph 2 says,  
>> 
>> “Member Consortia may also designate up to four (or more at the Team's discretion) individuals who, though not employed by the organization, may exercise the rights of Member representatives.” 
>> 
>> And paragraph 4 says,
>> 
>> “For Member Consortia who have organizations as Members, all such designated representatives must be an official representative of the Member organization (i.e. a Committee or Task Force Chairperson) and must disclose their employment affiliation when participating in W3C work. Provisions for related Members apply. Furthermore, these individuals must represent the broad interests of the W3C Member organization and not the particular interests of their employers.”
>> 
>> So, as far as I can see, Daisy can have its official, non-paid, representatives participate, up to 4 that is.
>> 
> Or more. I actually think removing the number and making external reps "at the team's discretion" in general would be a better idea.
>  
> But I think a better wording would be to change the wording slightly. Instead of relying on the "and external people" clause, change "paid staff" to something *like* "own staff, office bearers, and equivalent representatives”.

Maybe.  The way I read it is that your AC Rep and Staff can exercise full membership rights. In addition, with the agreement of the w3c you can name up to 4 more who will attend, but they need to be chairs or the like, and you need explicit assent from the w3c?

>  
> cheers
>  
>> From: J. Alan Bird [mailto:abird@w3.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 11:58 AM
>> To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>; Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Consortium question
>> 
>>    I really appreciate the focus you've put on this and believe the language proposed below is appropriate.   The only question is does this allow people like the Daisy Consortium to remain Members and have their representatives participate as I'm not sure they meet the "paid staff" criteria.  It would definitely change the participation of some Members like GENIVI and MAG which isn't necessarily a bad thing!
>> 
>>  
>> On 9/20/2016 11:45, David Singer wrote:
>> 
>> suggested clarification that companies with shareholders are not per se “member consortia”.
>>  
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> So the first paragraph would read as follows, and the rest of the language would stay the same.  Thoughts?
>> 
>> 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.  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 “ For a Member Consortium, the rights and privileges of W3C Membership granted by described in the W3C Process Document extend to the the Member Consortium’s organization's paid staff and Advisory Committee representative.
>> 
>  
>  
> -- 
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>  

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 09:28:25 UTC