RE: [chairs] Membership for open source implementers

["Gabe Wachob" <gabe.wachob@amsoft.net>]

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