[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]