Comments (7)
This is a trivial issue. In various practical cases it has happened, and I think we should simply allow it.
The only practical impact I can find is on voting, which is rare. Since voting other than for TAG and AB - where people have historically been allowed to cast multiple votes if they have them, as already allowed - is more or less left to chairs to implement and regulate, I don't think we should keep this constraint.
from w3process.
I think we should think about what 'representing' means. It is linked to voting (which rarely happens, and even more rarely on a member-by-member basis, it's usually on an individual basis), it's linked to 'Contributing' (in the formal sense). Anything else?
from w3process.
Is this the same as #9 ? Or is this one "Can person X represent Members A and B in WG Y?" while issue #9 is "Can person X represent Member A in WG Y and Member B is WG Z?"
A related issue which I currently have is "Can person X represent Member A in WG Y and be an IE in WG Z?" (answer from team-legal was Yes, if they disclose COI.)
from w3process.
The concern here is that a single contractor/agent might "represent" several companies in a W3C WG. That agent then makes patent licensing commitments on its own behalf, and not on the represented companies' behalf. The agent then gets contributions from the represented companies, which the contractor then funnels through to the WG. Those "contributing" companies haven't made any patent licensing commitments (so there would be no patent license), and the contractor hasn't contributed any of its own material (so its patent license commitment doesn't mean much). This is a bad situation all around. We should leave the language as is - even if this hasn't happened yet, the potentiality could create IP vulnerabilities for the other members of the WG who may not end up with a license to the contributions made through the agent to the WG. If the language doesn't create a problem, why change it?
from w3process.
@vfournier17 my understanding is that the issue is the other way around. Someone "represents" an organisation in a Working Group because that organisation sponsors them as a member - in practice, by joining the working group.
So the rationale for the change is to simplify the process of getting IPR commitment from each organisation from which an agent is actually contributing to a WG.
In the case you describe (which is the one I am also working from and I think the relevant one), Agent99 could be nominated to a WG by Agency - a W3C member, but contracting for both Control and Chaos, two other W3C members. While Agency is required to tell W3C of these "significant relationships" there is no formal mechanism for Control and Chaos to directly nominate Agent99 as their representative, which is the default mechanism through which they would commit IPR.
It is still possible for them to independently join the Working Group to make an IPR commitment, without naming a representative. Likewise, in principle it is possible for a non-member organisation who is not represented in the Working Group to make a commitment, but the actual procedures are bureaucratic in theory and ill-defined in practice (ping @wseltzer).
from w3process.
see also issue #9
from w3process.
closing and merging into #9
from w3process.
Related Issues (20)
- Can WGs request the W3C team to negotiate technical agreements with liaison organizations? HOT 4
- Diagram should clarify that it's possible to go from REC back to CR HOT 1
- "Wide review" is too easy to confuse with "horizontal review" HOT 7
- Veto by inaction HOT 16
- word order "W3C Group Draft Note" -> "Draft W3C Group Note" HOT 26
- living standard / candidate review snapshots need to address wide review issues HOT 12
- Council Composition requirements include Tim Berners-Lee, TAG life member HOT 5
- Disciplinary action HOT 3
- Stop citing the "superseded" TAG charter HOT 2
- Closing a group prior to the date specified in the charter should be a "Team Decision", not a "W3C Decision" HOT 8
- Are the rules for updating Registry Definitions appropriate? HOT 23
- W3C Decision needs better cross-referencing HOT 3
- What kind of Group is for what kind of work? HOT 1
- TAG Appointment Process Shortcomings HOT 25
- AB Role in TAG Appointment HOT 13
- Are TAG Appointments mandatory for the Team to fill?
- Ground the different types of groups / maturity stages in Problem Statements HOT 4
- Strip section 6.2.2.1 “wide review” of the mailing list currently mentioned HOT 1
- Affiliation constraints on TAG membership HOT 17
- The minimum time commitment for participation in the elected bodies is undefined HOT 4
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from w3process.