Re: Webizen progress and next meeting

On Aug 6, 2014 9:31 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/6/2014 4:26 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2014 3:57 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/6/2014 2:43 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 6, 2014 1:54 PM, "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > So I can't tell.  Did my proposal accomplish this or fall short of
this?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Close I think.  I didn't see the presentation,
>> >
>> >
>> > I wasn't talking about my June presentation (which was essentially the
previous wiki), I was referring to the way I was trying to find a middle
ground earlier in this thread.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.  So the proposal is like my own, but the
charter review feedback isn't formally counter, but at the discretion of
the director?
>
>
> Actually, all Charter review information is "formally" Advisory, even
from the AC.  In practice we attempt to be quite considerate of input.
>
So if the proposal is "the same" then it seems good.

>
>> What about votes?  Honestly  I'm a little dismayed  by what appear to be
efforts to prevent folks who might be paying members from being anything
but.
>
>
> This proposal does not propose that Webizens should be Members.  I
believe that is Chaals' proposal.
>
Response to this in next section as it's related.

>
>>   In fact, even in current proposals this is asking individuals to have
way more "skin in the game" than 99% of current members (because members
are individuals and it costs them nothing, their member -org- pays the bill
and at that level, for many of them the price point is often negligible).
The incentives and disincentives toward "common good" seem very at odds
with what you'd think.  Maybe it's hard for me to understand their position,
>
>
> I think their position is that W3C Members pay a lot more than $100 to be
Members.  You counter that it is not costing the individuals money (which
is true), but they counter that it is not the individuals - but the
organization that is the Member.
>
At some level this is semantics, we say "WG member" and affiliation with a
"member org" both in the sense of "membership" which has certain privileges
that non-members do not.  As I think I've articulated, I don't suggest 1
individual should be an org, even though there are doubtless wealthy folks
who could buy this privilege today.  Rather I'm suggesting that we simply
make it possible to build an org/affiliation that can fund itself through
whatever means without the hurdle of becoming a legal entity.  As you've
noted in other places, even W3C is not a legal entity.  If your entire
purpose is to gather for standards, this is a high bar that other orgs have
traditionally by birth.  I don't think it is a "counter" argument to point
out that the individuals that make up traditional member orgs generally
don't pay, the org does - but so far proposals have suggested that
individuals here would pay.  Even better would be to just allow any means
of funding (kick starter, bake sales, whatever) so that the bar is simply
"can you fund this group of people to act as a body" and if so we'll help
provide ways to make that easy and remove bureaucratic obstacles to
participation and treat you the same as everyone else.

>
>> I welcome any discussion here or off list (and off the record) from any
AC who feels they can articulate this better.  It would probably be
efficient than a telephone game anyway.
>
>