Subject: Re: Acknowledgements (Updated list <- affiliation change of one member)
One update we should not miss: As of 2018-MAY-07: OLD: Philip Royer, Phantom NEW: Philip Royer, Splunk Inc. Already chaned in below list: Hi, I suggest as Participant list offered initially to use: Andrew Pardoe, Microsoft Chris Wysopal, CA Technologies David Keaton, Individual Douglas Smith, Kestrel Technology Duncan Sparrell, sFractal Consulting LLC Everett Maus, Microsoft Hendrik Buchwald, RIPS Technologies Henny Sipma, Kestrel Technology Jim Kupsch, SWAMP Jordyn Puryear, Microsoft Joseph Feiman, CA Technologies Ken Prole, Code Dx, Inc. Kevin Greene, Mitre Corporation Larry Hines, Micro Focus Laurence Golding, Individual Luke Cartey, Semmle Mel Llaguno, Synopsys Michael Fanning, Microsoft Nikolai Mansourov, Object Management Group Paul Anderson, GrammaTech, Inc. Paul Brookes, Microsoft Paul Patrick, FireEye, Inc. Philip Royer, Splunk Inc. Pooya Mehregan, Security Compass Ram Jeyaraman, Microsoft Sean Barnum, FireEye, Inc. Smith Douglas, Kestrel Technology Stefan Hagen, Individual Sunny Chatterjee, Microsoft Tim Hudson, Cryptsoft Pty Ltd. Trey Darley, New Context Services, Inc. Vamshi Basupalli, SWAMP Yekaterina O'Neil, Micro FocusAs withing other TCs I only included members (regardless of voting state) iff they attended at least one meeting.
I use the First/Given Name then Last/Family Name convention, as it is practiced in some TCs, mirrors best our communication style in the TC when conducting business, and helps finding people that sometimes change that Last/Family name (like eg. I did two times in my life).
The affiliation is **not** used as grouping to make clear, that individual experts are members of the TC not company delegates. Of course when being affiliated with a company, it is clear, that the members have the clearance from the company they are affiliated with.
People also changed affiliation during lifetime of this TC, so it is noted the last, iff they are still members or their last participation was with this affiliation.
The restirction on members is naurally derived from the IPR safeguarding function of the TC process and by the technical fact, that observers are allowed to listen but not to talk during the meetings, thus no input possible.
I think this is a good candidate and I would be happy to see this included in that way in our first CSD01 "baby"
All the best, Stefan.