See also: IRC log
-> Alan's proposal $Id: Process2.1Proposal.html,v 1.19 2016/02/08 06:05:54 abird Exp $
Steve: maybe we can discuss a reply to Chaal's comments
-> Re: Issue-163 Update of Members that are Consortia themselves Chaal's comments on Alan's proposal
Alan: I'm not sure I understand Chaals' objection
Steve: I don't like redundancy either but
the restriction on representation is buried deeply
... I understand "difficult to enforce" but the goal is to remind people
what they're *supposed* to be doing
Alan: my team does not have the ability to
tell a Consortium Member that they 4 people they appoint must represent
the Consortium's views
... so we can work with them to get their members to join as W3C Members
... this needs some chair training too; a chair needs to be reminded to
listen to how people are expressing themselves and remind them they must
represent their consortium
Steve: I hate to add work to the chairs
Delfi: I've been following the work, but not an active participant
Steve: [recaps]
... I observed that one of the main things Alan is trying to accomplish
is reminding representatives of Consortia that they must represent the
entire consortium
Delfi: as an individual I think it's
important that people who take a role act on the part of himself/herself
... the collaboration of institutions as partnerships
... people should have read the legal notices before they participate
... it's important that everyone who takes part in the work agree with
all the conditions
... e.g. to whom all the work belongs
Steve: I'm not hearing anyone on this call who supports Chaals' point of view
Delfi: I might agree that the way Chaals
demands that people who take part figure as members of a cooperation
... people taking part in standardization should be responsible by
themselves
Alan: if we don't draw a line between people
sitting in a seat representing a consortium vs. representing their core
company
... I don't know how we'll resolve a current situation where someone
employed by a multi-billion $ company is sitting in a WG as a
representative of a consortium
... this consortium has no IP
... and we don't have IP commitments from the member company
Delfi: when a team produces something it has
intrisic value that belongs to the consortium
... it may seem hard to balance a company who invests a lot in an
individual
... it would be nice for W3C to find a balance between [such a company]
and an individual
Steve: two things;
... when someone participates they're usually participating based on
their own personal knowledge
... that's not what we're addressing here
... the point is that when a company is represented they may own patents
on some things that become part of the standard
... and later demand license fees for implementation of the standard
Delfi: I understand
... I don't have a solution
... we've been living the last 5 years in an open source environment
where everyone contributes something
Steve: [to Alan] I believe we were asking consortia participants to at least agree to the same policy Invited Experts agree to; disclose patents based on their personal knowledge
Alan: yes
Steve: that seems to be the strongest we're
capable of getting
... so at least the person contributing must disclose based on his own
knowledge
Alan: not sure that's enough
Steve: this would allow a lawyer to argue
that this person violated the conditions of his participation by
witholding knowledge that the company owned IP that he was aware of
... I know of at least one instance where this was done; the individual
in question was the author of the patent
... so it at least provides a legal challenge to the company enforcing
the patent that they violated the terms of their participation
Alan: the company [may not] have falsely represented as they don't [formally] have a seat at the table
Steve: but the individual has violated [the agreement]
Alan: what I want is for these consortia to
not want to take the risk to W3C by exposing their membership rights
... we'd need to make clear that everyone has to live by Invited Expert
rules
... and remind the consortia of their exposure
Steve: I agree with that
Delfi: I know people in some of the
companies in Spain who are W3C Members
... we should take into consideration the [differences between]
contributions of individuals who are also employed by these companies
Steve: there's a distinction between a
company who is participating making a commitment on behalf of the
company
... when an individual participates as an Invited Expert he makes a
commitment only on the basis of his knowledge, not on behalf of the
company
... where this gets grey is companies that are not IT companies -- we
expect them to be W3C Members -- but when a company's primary business
is not IT
... these companies have IP outside of the IT area and that's where
their lawyers get concerned
Delfi: I'm not a lawyer myself so I can't
give a quick solution
... individuals must be responsible for themselves
... agreeing to make fair use of the knowledge
... and the company must also be willing to understand that an
individual by himself can benefit the consortium by acting themself
Steve: by making sure that we require participation of consortia members at least at the level of the I.E. Agreement then when they choose their participants those individuals will at least need to get permission to participate at that level
Alan: that covers part of it
... but I'm still concerned that by using a consortium -- e.g. a retail
store consortium dealing with payment
... and Company P is a driver of that consortium
... Company P says to an employee 'ok, make your contributions under our
retail consortium'
... that leaves open a route for continued abuse
Steve: in the interest of making some improvement to our policy that may fix the problem without reopening questions on the Patent Policy we're limited on how far we can go
Mike: a company that's not really in the Web
space even though it uses the Web is going to be hard-pressed to justify
[our Full Member fees]
... the value of an individual's time to participate in W3C is one thing
... but the additional Member Fee is a hard thing to justify
Alan: I have a real example; a large company
is using a consortium membership to get what they want
... I want the broad base
... but I don't want major corporations who see the direct value of
participating in W3C to be able to save 90% by participating through a
consortium
Mike: how about a graduated rate for
consortia?
... a mechanism for the Director [to use] when abuse is identified; set
their member fee
Steve: Alan is trying to get those rules
clearly stated in the Process
... right now he's [only able] to say that such a company is abusing the
intent of consortia membership
Delfi: yes; I understand the challenge when a non-Web company wants to participate
Mike: we talked about this as we were
designing Community Groups
... the value of W3C increases even when there are non-paying
participants
... we assume that potential members who try out CG participation will
see value in participating in AC votes, having their name on a
Recommendation
... I don't want a special case that complicates things for others
Steve: Alan has been trying to use existing
mechanisms; this text tries to make clear that existing mechanisms apply
rather than making new ones
... since Chaals isn't here to represent his view ...
... I'd like to see a resolution that says
... (1) we believe that making the conditions of consortia membership
more clear is something we should do
... (2) those conditions will use existing mechanisms, in particular the
requirement for Invited Expert participation
... does that capture the key things you want to accomplish, Alan?
Alan: I'll have to take a close look
... there are points in the Process where we need to more clearly
articulate this
Jeff: I don't see how this resolution
addresses the specific text in Alan's proposal
... are we rejecting Alan's text in this resolution?
Steve: no, I was trying to reject Chaal's challenges to Alan's proposal
Jeff: let's vote on the proposal that's on the table
Steve: ok
<Alan> https://www.w3.org/2015/09/Process2.1Proposal.html
Steve: I believe Alan's proposal is
consistent with what I was saying
... any objections?
Delfi: no objections
Steve: no objections heard
... therefore Alan's proposal is adopted
... so I now have an action to send a Call for Consensus for those who
were not able to join this call
... this goes to the CG list
Mike: and the Advisory Board will also have
a whack
... I'm taking no position here in this venue
Steve: I heard you say you don't want to discourage useful participation
Mike: absolutely
... and I want the Team to have tools to deal with someone who is
abusing
... perhaps the Advisory Board can discuss more concrete cases
Steve: this meeting has adopted Alan's proposal and I'll send a Call for Consensus
[adjourned]
<scribe> ACTION: Steve send a call for consensus on adopting Alan's proposed revision to the text on Members who are themselves Consortia [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/02/15-w3process-minutes.html#action01]