Although the rights and privilages of membership are limited to paid
employees, according to the Affiliate member agreement and Appendix1, there
is nothing to prevent a paid employee being a spokesman of the group.
Certainly no members of the group should air their confidential knowledge on
a public forum, but there are several W3 members who contribute regularly to
the W3 forums, Jon Bosak, Dave Ragget, Chris Wilson to name a few.
It is clear that members or sponsors of a consortium cannot attend
meetings etc. but they can send paid employees to meetings on their behalf.
The idea behind a process such as XML-Devil is not to take over the
organization, but to have input into the W3 decision making process.
>> set up and maintain a mailing list just like xml-dev
(only restricted), and monitor the activities of each and every one of
the "employees" to make sure that they followed W3C confidentiality
guidelines<<
Many of us do this already and have ample time for other activities!! We
are not talking about a 10,000 member organization here!!
rank
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Park <donpark@quake.net>
To: xml-dev@ic.ac.uk <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: XML-DEVIL Proposal - was Open Standards Processes
>>Cute idea, but it won't accomplish what you want. You would have to
>>incorporate and set up legal employment contracts with all your
>>"employees", and then all the employees of the corporation would be
>>legally bound to respect the confidentiality of the W3C work in
>>progress just like the employees of the current W3C members are. So
>>there goes your free and open public discussion. And you could say
>>goodbye to the right to speculate in newsgroups or public lists like
>>xml-dev.
>
>If I understand the requirements correctly, all types of organizations are
>allowed to be a member of W3C. It includes commercial, educational,
>government agencies. Nothing indicates that it excludes industry
>association. Having to become an employee of XML-Devil Inc. seems like a
>subversion and I do not feel right doing that. I would like to be able to
>do this without having to sell myself out.
>
>I was not planning to have open public discussions, XML-Devils will have
our
>own closed mailing list where we will discuss the issues and submit
comments
>and proposals to W3C. Anyone breaking the confidentiality agreement will
>lose the membership. One of us will be elected to represent us in the W3C
>Advisory Committee.
>
>What we, the independent XML developers, offer could be what W3C needs to
>remain truely vendor-neutral. Netscape, JavaSoft, and others can probably
>balance Microsoft within W3C but there is currently nothing except good
>judgement to balance the needs of large corporations and small developers.
>I do not like being dependent on other people's judgement. I do not want
to
>be a bystander while big boys play politics on the supposedly level ground.
>
>What we are trying to do will not have negative impact on W3C activities.
>We are all professional developers and we will strive to be an integral
part
>of W3C. It would be best if W3C offered special membership to a
>self-governing group of independent developers.
>
>Meanwhile, I will take a look at what OASIS offers as you suggested. Thank
>you for taking the time to respond in length.
>
>Regards,
>
>Don Park
>http://www.docuverse.com/personal/index.html
>
>PS: I would like to change the proposed name to XML-DEV Independent Lobby
>rather than LogHead which is similar in concept but less professional :-).
>
>
>
>xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
>Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
>To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
>(un)subscribe xml-dev
>To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following
message;
>subscribe xml-dev-digest
>List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
>
>