Re: process for workprocess cte

[Jon Bosak <bosak@boethius.eng.sun.com>]

[tallen@sonic.net:]

| | Institutional membership is a kind of individual membership -- same
| | cost, same benefits.  The difference is that *with proper
| | notification* an institutional membership is transferable in case an
| | individual holding the membership ceases to become available to
| | participate on behalf of the institution.  The intended effect of this
| 
| Please let's get the official text sanctioned by the board before
| we delve into the present membership rules further.  I can assure you
| that no company I've worked for regards its membership as one held by
| an individual.

Oops.  Sorry, I've caused some confusion by not keeping up with
changes in nomenclature.

As set forth in the URL you cite below, "Corporate Membership in
OASIS" includes the categories "sponsor" and "contributor"; these
categories for organizational members start at $2500 a year for small
companies and range up to $10,000 a year for sponsors.

Under "Individual Membership in OASIS" are the categories "Individual
Membership" and "Associate Membership."  The associate membership is
(as the heading says) a kind of individual membership.  When I
originally proposed this idea, it was called an institutional
membership, and that's the name that's stuck with me.  The word
"associate" should be substituted for "institutional" in the passage
of mine quoted above.  My apologies for the mistake.

An associate membership is an individual membership that can be
transferred to another individual at the request of an institution; it
costs $250, like other individual memberships.

[referring to the associate membership, properly called:]

| | is to allow any organization to have a membership with individual
| | benefits.  (I don't know how well the notification process is
| | specified at the moment, but I do know that's how this is supposed to
| | function.)
| 
| How do you know?  I sure can't figure that out from the public info,
|   
|   http://www.oasis-open.org/html/members.htm

It's in the description for associate memberships:

   OASIS supports XML specification development by offering an
   Associate Membership to individuals representing application
   or industry standards bodies. Associates are individuals
   appointed by an industry consortium or standards body
   (recognized as such by the OASIS Board of Directors) to
   represent the interests of that body in OASIS. Representatives
   enjoy the same rights and level of service as Individuals; the
   difference is that representation is transferable between
   individuals if the designated contact person for the
   represented organization gives notice. This allows continuity
   of participation by an organization even when it is necessary
   to change designated representatives.

| | This requirement has caused such an unbelievable amount of trouble in
| | W3C work that we're starting to give up on it.  (I can't go into
| | further detail because I don't know for a fact that all the people on
| | this list are W3C members.)  
| 
| then we'll have to ignore that inaccessible experience.

You also have the option of believing me.  W3C members of this list
can check the briefing package for Phase III of the XML Activity.

| | Both Eduardo Gutentag and David Singer
| | have registered opinions to the contrary, but I maintain that in
| | designing XML standards, 
| 
| please let's shift to "XML specifications" or "XML applications" to
| avoid confusion with what the W3C thinks it's doing.

I think you mean "confusion with that the W3C acts like what it's
doing."  On paper, the W3C has been very careful to say that it is
*not* developing standards; that's why the final stage in the W3C
process is "recommendation."  I belong to the school of thought that
believes that no organization in which all final decisions are made by
an individual can be called a standards organization.  OASIS, on the
other hand, certainly can act as a standards organization, and can be
favorably compared in this respect with small, recognized standards
bodies like the IEEE Standards Association.

| The W3C process may be broken in that it has not closed committees
| that have not met their deliverables; the IETF requires a schedule and
| expects it to be kept to.  Certainly estimating the period of time
| necessary to do the proposed work is a reasonable requirement, and
| essential if the member's supervisor is to commit money to the task.

I disagree based on experience in W3C, but it's certainly a point on
which reasonable people can differ.

When we do the long-term process we will probably have to decide this
question by voting on it ... which is an example of why we have to be
properly consitituted as a committee.

Jon