16:03:25 RRSAgent has joined #w3process 16:03:25 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/15-w3process-irc 16:09:50 present+ Alan, Jeff, Ralph 16:10:15 Meeting: Process Task Force 16:10:17 Alan has joined #w3process 16:10:28 Zakim has joined #w3process 16:10:40 present+ Alan, Jeff, Ralph 16:14:03 present+ SteveZ 16:17:32 SteveZ has joined #w3process 16:20:05 chair: Steve 16:20:20 Steve: maybe we can discuss a reply to Chaal's comments 16:20:59 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2016Feb/0001.html Re: Issue-163 Update of Members that are Consortia themselves 16:21:18 regrets+ Chaals 16:21:32 Alan: I'm not sure I understand Chaals' objection 16:21:57 Steve: I don't like redundancy either but the restriction on representation is buried deeply 16:22:20 ... I understand "difficult to enforce" but the goal is to remind people what they're *supposed* to be doing 16:22:47 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 16:23:02 ... so we can work with them to get their members to join as W3C Members 16:23:31 ... 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 16:23:50 Steve: I hate to add work to the chairs 16:24:01 present+ Delfi_Ramirez(Spain) 16:24:16 Delfi: I've been following the work, but not an active participant 16:24:40 Steve: [recaps] 16:25:28 ... 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 16:25:51 Delfi: as an individual I think it's important that people who take a role act on the part of himself/herself 16:26:30 ... the collaboration of institutions as partnerships 16:26:44 ... people should have read the legal notices before they participate 16:26:58 ... it's important that everyone who takes part in the work agree with all the conditions 16:27:17 ... e.g. to whom all the work belongs 16:27:35 Steve: I'm not hearing anyone on this call who supports Chaals' point of view 16:27:57 Delfi: I might agree that the way Chaals demands that people who take part figure as members of a cooperation 16:28:13 ... people taking part in standardization should be responsible by themselves 16:28:51 Alan: if we don't draw a line between people sitting in a seat representing a consortium vs. representing their core company 16:29:48 ... 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 16:29:55 ... this consortium has no IP 16:30:10 ... and we don't have IP commitments from the member company 16:30:43 Delfi: when a team produces something it has intrisic value that belongs to the consortium 16:31:03 ... it may seem hard to balance a company who invests a lot in an individual 16:31:27 ... it would be nice for W3C to find a balance between [such a company] and an individual 16:31:50 present+ Mike 16:31:56 Steve: two things; 16:32:10 ... when someone participates they're usually participating based on their own personal knowledge 16:32:16 ... that's not what we're addressing here 16:32:59 ... the point is that when a company is represented they may own patents on some things that become part of the standard 16:33:11 ... and later demand license fees for implementation of the standard 16:33:17 Delfi: I understand 16:33:32 ... I don't have a solution 16:34:20 ... we've been living the last 5 years in an open source environment where everyone contributes something 16:35:10 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 16:35:12 Alan: yes 16:35:29 Steve: that seems to be the strongest we're capable of getting 16:35:56 ... so at least the person contributing must disclose based on his own knowledge 16:36:01 Alan: not sure that's enough 16:36:37 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 16:37:04 ... I know of at least one instance where this was done; the individual in question was the author of the patent 16:37:25 ... so it at least provides a legal challenge to the company enforcing the patent that they violated the terms of their participation 16:37:44 Alan: the company [may not] have falsely represented as they don't [formally] have a seat at the table 16:37:55 Steve: but the individual has violated [the agreement] 16:38:22 Alan: what I want is for these consortia to not want to take the risk to W3C by exposing their membership rights 16:38:48 ... we'd need to make clear that everyone has to live by Invited Expert rules 16:38:58 ... and remind the consortia of their exposure 16:39:03 Steve: I agree with that 16:39:29 Delfi: I know people in some of the companies in Spain who are W3C Members 16:40:12 ... we should take into consideration the [differences between] contributions of individuals who are also employed by these companies 16:40:32 Steve: there's a distinction between a company who is participating making a commitment on behalf of the company 16:40:52 ... 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 16:41:17 ... 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 16:41:31 ... these companies have IP outside of the IT area and that's where their lawyers get concerned 16:41:45 Delfi: I'm not a lawyer myself so I can't give a quick solution 16:41:52 ... individuals must be responsible for themselves 16:42:04 ... agreeing to make fair use of the knowledge 16:42:31 ... and the company must also be willing to understand that an individual by himself can benefit the consortium by acting themself 16:43:14 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 16:43:18 Alan: that covers part of it 16:43:42 ... but I'm still concerned that by using a consortium -- e.g. a retail store consortium dealing with payment 16:43:55 ... and Company P is a driver of that consortium 16:44:15 ... Company P says to an employee 'ok, make your contributions under our retail consortium' 16:44:23 ... that leaves open a route for continued abuse 16:44:56 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 16:45:29 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] 16:45:50 ... the value of an individual's time to participate in W3C is one thing 16:46:10 ... but the additional Member Fee is a hard thing to justify 16:46:49 Alan: I have a real example; a large company is using a consortium membership to get what they want 16:46:53 ... I want the broad base 16:47:21 ... 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 16:47:47 Mike: how about a graduated rate for consortia? 16:48:19 ... a mechanism for the Director [to use] when abuse is identified; set their member fee 16:48:32 Steve: Alan is trying to get those rules clearly stated in the Process 16:49:03 ... right now he's [only able] to say that such a company is abusing the intent of consortia membership 16:49:22 Delfi: yes; I understand the challenge when a non-Web company wants to participate 16:49:34 Mike: we talked about this as we were designing Community Groups 16:49:51 ... the value of W3C increases even when there are non-paying participants 16:50:24 ... we assume that potential members who try out CG participation will see value in participating in AC votes, having their name on a Recommendation 16:50:35 ... I don't want a special case that complicates things for others 16:51:01 Steve: Alan has been trying to use existing mechanisms; this text tries to make clear that existing mechanisms apply rather than making new ones 16:51:24 ... since Chaals isn't here to represent his view ... 16:51:31 ... I'd like to see a resolution that says 16:51:49 ... (1) we believe that making the conditions of consortia membership more clear is something we should do 16:52:07 ... (2) those conditions will use existing mechanisms, in particular the requirement for Invited Expert participation 16:52:22 ... does that capture the key things you want to accomplish, Alan? 16:52:30 Alan: I'll have to take a close look 16:52:47 ... there are points in the Process where we need to more clearly articulate this 16:53:00 Jeff: I don't see how this resolution addresses the specific text in Alan's proposal 16:53:11 ... are we rejecting Alan's text in this resolution? 16:53:25 Steve: no, I was trying to reject Chaal's challenges to Alan's proposal 16:53:36 Jeff: let's vote on the proposal that's on the table 16:53:38 Steve: ok 16:53:47 https://www.w3.org/2015/09/Process2.1Proposal.html 16:53:49 ... I believe Alan's proposal is consistent with what I was saying 16:53:52 ... any objections? 16:53:56 Delfi: no objections 16:54:01 Steve: no objections heard 16:54:08 ... therefore Alan's proposal is adopted 16:54:27 ... so I now have an action to send a Call for Consensus for those who were not able to join this call 16:54:34 ... this goes to the CG list 16:54:50 Mike: and the Advisory Board will also have a whack 16:55:00 ... I'm taking no position here in this venue 16:55:17 Steve: I heard you say you don't want to discourage useful participation 16:55:22 Mike: absolutely 16:55:33 ... and I want the Team to have tools to deal with someone who is abusing 16:56:02 ... perhaps the Advisory Board can discuss more concrete cases 16:56:20 Steve: this meeting has adopted Alan's proposal and I'll send a Call for Consensus 16:56:25 dbaron has joined #w3process 16:56:27 [adjourned] 16:56:38 Alan has left #w3process 16:56:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/15-w3process-minutes.html Ralph 16:58:08 i|Steve: maybe we can discuss|Topic: Alan's proposal on Members who are themselves Consortia 16:58:25 present- Mike 16:58:31 present+ Mike_Champion 16:59:13 action: Steve send a call for consensus on adopting Alan's proposed revision to the text on Members who are themselves Consortia 16:59:13 Error creating an ACTION: data field(s) missing from result. Please mail with details about what happened. 16:59:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/15-w3process-minutes.html Ralph 17:10:35 zakim, bye 17:10:35 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been Alan, Jeff, Ralph, SteveZ, Delfi_Ramirez(Spain), Mike, Mike_Champion 17:10:35 Zakim has left #w3process 17:10:38 rrsagent, bye 17:10:38 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2016/02/15-w3process-actions.rdf : 17:10:38 ACTION: Steve send a call for consensus on adopting Alan's proposed revision to the text on Members who are themselves Consortia [1] 17:10:38 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/02/15-w3process-irc#T16-59-13