[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [chairs] Membership for open source implementers
I know of one instance where a TC was populated by individuals who
had their fees paid for them.
-jeff
On Apr 06, 2007, at 9:32 AM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Scott
>
> While no-one has paid multiple individuals to join TCs, I know of
> several companies have populated TCs with a large number of
> members, most of whom only speak up at a vote or at rollcall, so I
> don't think its beyond the bounds of belief.
>
> Paul
>
> Scott McGrath wrote:
>> Gabe,
>> At some level, many members are here because their peers, partners,
>> suppliers or customers have encouraged them to join OASIS. But we
>> have not
>> witnessed any situation where a member thinks so strongly of their
>> cause as
>> to directly encourage them with their checkbook in a "buying
>> plurality" way.
>> Could it happen, I suppose. Is it likely? I don't know. I do
>> know that
>> I'd like to hear from any members who *have* convinced their
>> management to
>> pay several member fees, because we might learn some interesting
>> sales
>> techniques ;-)
>> Going forward...
>> We should move this dialogue to member-discuss@lists.oasis-
>> open.org. I can
>> add an announcement to the next Member news that this dialogue is
>> there now
>> and every member (not the subset that are chairs) can share their
>> views on
>> this. Scott...
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net]
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 8:51 PM
>>> To: 'Scott McGrath'; Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM; chairs@lists.oasis-
>>> open.org
>>> Subject: RE: [chairs] Membership for open source implementers
>>>
>>> Eduardo, Scott, et al:
>>>
>>> OK, so taking my alternative, does anyone see a risk of a company
>>> astroturfing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing) a TC by
>>> paying for
>>> individual memberships for individuals acting under their "command"?
>>>
>>> Am I just paranoid? The point of the TC process was to avoid process
>>> manipulation, and to maximize transparency. I'd like to enable
>>> open source
>>> implementer participation in as transparent a way as possible,
>>> but it feels
>>> broken for me (as a OASIS member) to be able to pay for someone
>>> else's
>>> participation and not be required to disclose that fact.
>>>
>>> -Gabe
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Scott McGrath [mailto:scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:00 PM
>>>> To: 'Gabe Wachob'; Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM; chairs@lists.oasis-
>>>> open.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [chairs] Membership for open source implementers
>>>>
>>>> Gabe, Eduardo, All,
>>>>
>>>> OASIS doesn't have an "Invited Expert" but does have something
>>>> of similar
>>>> net effect -
>>>>
>>>> A TC Chair can advocate for a free membership for someone who
>>>> cannot
>>>> afford
>>>> to share the financial burden of supporting the OASIS
>>>> infrastructure,
>>>> someone who is an important technical asset. Patrick can grant a
>>>> complimentary membership - which I pay for from my budget.
>>>> (There are
>>>> accounting reasons for not just giving away membership, but not
>>>> to bore
>>>> you
>>>> with accounting practices here) alternatively, our Member
>>>> Sections can
>>>> also
>>>> use some of their budget to serve their market needs by paying for
>>>> memberships of someone one might deem as an expert.
>>>>
>>>> I should point out that the budget for such things is justifiably
>>> limited,
>>>> and probably ranges around a dozen in total. I'd also point out
>>>> that the
>>>> Individual class of membership (Individuals and Associates) is
>>>> deeply
>>>> subsidized. These are hundreds of members who willingly pay
>>>> something
>>>> (approximately 1/2 our cost per member to operate) willingly,
>>>> because
>>> they
>>>> do want to help support the overhead. So in essence, one might
>>>> argue in
>>>> terms of finite budgets, we can support two Individuals at the
>>>> same cost
>>>> as
>>>> 1 complimentary member.
>>>>
>>>> As Eduardo points out, the Individual membership is an
>>>> extraordinary
>>>> bargain, and an option not offered by many organizations that do
>>>> offer
>>>> some
>>>> "Invited Expert" memberships. I'm jaded by proximity, but I am
>>>> proud
>>> that
>>>> we can enable hundreds of Individual members at a cost that is
>>>> reasonable
>>>> for them. I am proud of the operational efficiency of OASIS and
>>>> how
>>>> effectively our members share resources of time and financial
>>>> support.
>>>>
>>>> You know that as a non-profit, we balance revenue with
>>>> operations costs.
>>>> I
>>>> am inclined to seek more revenue so we can provide more services
>>>> to more
>>>> members--because there is nearly an infinite amount of work we
>>>> can do in
>>>> support of the OASIS mission. That said, we are working with
>>>> your dues,
>>>> so
>>>> we are open to your guidance on where to spend more of it ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I'll step off the soapbox now.
>>>>
>>>> Scott...
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 6:20 PM
>>>>> To: Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: [chairs] Membership for open source implementers
>>>>>
>>>>> Two things:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) OASIS used to have "invited experts" - I was one a number of
>>>>> years
>>> ago
>>>>> (though I think the "expert" tag was maybe misapplied to me ;).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Eduardo, I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not saying
>>>>> that any
>>>>> individual can show up and say they are an implementer and
>>>>> become a
>>>> member
>>>>> for free. I'm talking about people who have demonstrated to the
>>>>> TC their
>>>>> willingness to contribute to the TC's body of work in ways
>>>>> which don't
>>>>> involve paying money to OASIS. The point here is that we (at
>>>>> least our
>>>> TC)
>>>>> need to support open source implementations to the fullest extent
>>>> possible,
>>>>> and where the implementer is an individual and not getting paid
>>>>> for
>>> their
>>>>> implementation by an employer or other party, we're effectively
>>>>> pushing
>>>>> them
>>>>> away from our work. Bad Idea, if you ask me.
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like the answer you are proposing is "have someone in
>>>>> the TC
>>>> pay
>>>>> for that person's membership" - which is definitely one
>>>>> solution. But I
>>>>> think it raises issues about transparency and independence of TC
>>>>> membership.
>>>>> But if that's the way OASIS makes us do it, then I guess that's
>>>>> the way
>>>>> we'd
>>>>> do it...
>>>>>
>>>>> -Gabe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM [mailto:Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:07 PM
>>>>>> To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [chairs] Membership for open source implementers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken is right, "invited expert" does not exist in OASIS, that
>>>>>> is W3C
>>>>>> parlance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - anybody can read the email of the TC through the archives (yes,
>>> there
>>>>> is
>>>>>> a slight delay and it's a pull not push system, but hey, it's
>>>> gratis...)
>>>>>> - anybody can send comments to the TC through the comment
>>>>>> mechanism,
>>>>> which
>>>>>> means they first have to agree (and be legally bound by their
>>>> agreement)
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> whatever IPR they contribute to the TC is offered under the
>>>>>> same IPR
>>>> mode
>>>>>> as the TC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So now you know what $300 buys you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to the argument that "for someone doing good
>>>>>> work that benefits the OASIS community, it seems odd that we'd
>>>>>> throw
>>>>>> a barrier up for them to contribute even more directly.", hm,
>>>>>> since
>>>>>> we all are doing work that benefits the OASIS community, why
>>>>>> don't we
>>>>>> just eliminate fees for all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just kidding...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/05/2007 02:44 PM, G. Ken Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm not so quick to just let any project committer participate
>>> unless
>>>>>>> they are first obliged to adhere to the OASIS membership
>>>>>>> agreement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think money is the issue ... I think intellectual
>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>> rights are more important. Contributions to the committees
>>>>>>> have to
>>>> be
>>>>>>> unencumbered and the OASIS membership agreement attempts to
>>>>>>> address
>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>> Preventing people from just "joining our list and
>>>>>>> contributing" is
>>>> not
>>>>>>> at all absurd. As a committee chair I want to ensure
>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>> through the membership agreement, are acceptable to use without
>>>>>>> burdening the chair to any due diligence. The due diligence is
>>>> covered
>>>>>>> off by the agreement. Legal experts have covered all this in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> membership terms and I don't want to have to be in a position to
>>>>>>> interpret them personally ... that is clearly not my expertise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, where in http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/
>>>>>>> process.php is
>>>>>>> "invited expert" defined? I was unaware of Gabe's assertion
>>>>>>> that
>>>> such
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> concept exists in OASIS parlance. How do committees identify,
>>>> qualify
>>>>>>> and accredit such experts without obligating them under the
>>>> membership
>>>>>>> rules?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope these comments are considered constructive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken (Code List Representation TC Chair)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 2007-04-05 22:30 +0100, Paul Fremantle wrote:
>>>>>>>> Gabe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I completely agree. I think that any committer on any project
>>>> actively
>>>>>>>> implementing an OASIS specification under an OSI license
>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>> able to apply for a Open Source Membership free-of-charge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally I don't think this is going to cost OASIS any
>>>>>>>> loss of
>>>>>>>> income, but it certainly will encourage a wider view of OASIS
>>>>>> standards.
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gabe Wachob wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Chairs-
>>>>>>>>> This is a topic that's come up for us I think
>>>>>>>>> at least
>>>>>>>>> twice. We have a community member (not an OASIS member) who is
>>>>>>>>> actively implementing our specification (XRI) and is
>>>>>>>>> interested in
>>>>>>>>> the spec discussion. However, we can't let them join our
>>>>>>>>> list and
>>>>>>>>> contribute because they have to be an OASIS member. So the
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>> answer we can give them is "pay $300 to participate".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This seems absurd. Their implementation of our
>>>>>>>>> spec is
>>>>>>>>> one of the most valuable contributions to the TC's work at
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>> point
>>>>>>>>> in the lifecycle of the spec. Their feedback on implementation
>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>> and recommendations for how to adjust the spec are absolutely
>>>>>>>>> critical. And yet, they are left out of the conversation. The
>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>> of forcing them to pay $300 to participate seems a bit
>>>>>>>>> ludicrous,
>>>>>>>>> since they are already contributing (in this case, as an
>>> individual
>>>>>>>>> on their own time).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OASIS has a concept of "invited expert". Could
>>>>>>>>> there
>>> be
>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> new category of "invited open source implementer"? As I've
>>>>>>>>> said
>>>> many
>>>>>>>>> times before, I think OASIS should be trying to facilitate
>>>>>>>>> Open
>>>>>>>>> Source implementations of the Open Standards it produces to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> maximum extent it can (and to the extent its TC's wish that to
>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>> Open Source - but that's a different discussion). You may
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> $300 a year is a trivial amount of money, but for someone
>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>> good
>>>>>>>>> work that benefits the OASIS community, it seems odd that we'd
>>>> throw
>>>>>>>>> a barrier up for them to contribute even more directly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm sure any potential abuse could be managed,
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> I assume it's managed for the "invited expert" category.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alternatively, I suppose the membership of the TC
>>> could
>>>>>>>>> "chip in" for membership of the open source implementer,
>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>> seems like a "hack" that raises some questions about
>>>>>>>>> independence
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> participation and potential appearance of manipulation of the
>>>>>>>>> membership.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Gabe
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Paul Fremantle
>>>>>>>> VP/Technical Sales, WSO2
>>>>>>>> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
>>>>>>>> paul@wso2.com
>>>>>>>> (646) 290 8050
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL
>>>>>>> training
>>>>>>> RSS feeds: publicly-available developer resources and
>>>>>>> training
>>>>>>> G. Ken Holman
>>>>>>> mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
>>>>>>> Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://
>>>>>>> www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
>>>>>>> Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999
>>>>>>> (F:-0995)
>>>>>>> Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/
>>>>>>> o/bc
>>>>>>> Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/
>>>>>>> legal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
>>>>>> Technology Director | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 (internal
>>>>>> x31442)
>>>>>> Corporate Standards | Sun Microsystems Inc.
>>>>>> W3C AC Rep / W3C AB / OASIS BoD
>
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technical Sales, WSO2
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> paul@wso2.com
> (646) 290 8050
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>
--
Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards +1(650)
506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff 500 Oracle Parkway, M/
S 4OP9
Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]