New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add a Consortium type #1559

Open
danbri opened this Issue Mar 16, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@danbri
Contributor

danbri commented Mar 16, 2017

This was originally suggested via the #1495 proposal of LibrarySystem but has broader use, and its use for LibrarySystem may not be a good fit.

danbri added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 16, 2017

Backed off from LibrarySystem depending on Consortium type.
Moved latter to its own issue #1559.

This leaves it open for particular LibrarySystems to be described
as a Consortium without making the sweeping statement that they all are.
We may also want to give future attention to the idea that such systems
occur within libraries.
@danbri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@danbri

danbri Mar 16, 2017

Contributor

See #1539 for examples

Contributor

danbri commented Mar 16, 2017

See #1539 for examples

@jhabdas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jhabdas

jhabdas Aug 12, 2017

I saw there was already some extensive conversation in #1495 and it's hard to follow. It would be helpful to spell out the key benefits of a new Consortium type based on the conversation as it seems as though parent and sub-orgs are generic enough to handle this use case—though like I said there's quite a bit of detailed discussion which would need to be absorbed from the linked issue in order to understand the true benefit of adding a new type.

jhabdas commented Aug 12, 2017

I saw there was already some extensive conversation in #1495 and it's hard to follow. It would be helpful to spell out the key benefits of a new Consortium type based on the conversation as it seems as though parent and sub-orgs are generic enough to handle this use case—though like I said there's quite a bit of detailed discussion which would need to be absorbed from the linked issue in order to understand the true benefit of adding a new type.

@thadguidry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thadguidry

thadguidry Jul 2, 2018

Circling back to this... we misplaced the common use case itself, not that of any legal relationships, but instead "to collaborate or share resources among members".

Wikipedia has the definition being "A consortium is an association of two or more individuals, companies, organizations or governments (or any combination of these entities) with the objective of participating in a common activity or pooling their resources for achieving a common goal". - and I highly suggest reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium The Latin etymology is interesting.

For profit example:
Hulu, the American video streaming service, is owned by a consortium of large media conglomerates including Time Warner, 21st Century Fox, Comcast, and the Walt Disney Company. <-- pooling of a lot of money, talent, and sharing of some attorneys :) really.

Non profit example:
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), is a consortium that standardizes web technologies like HTML, XML and CSS. <--sharing of ideas, some that could be patented, but never are for the benefit of mankind.

  • We need to nail down a much better definition for our Consortium type in pending.

I would much rather see our Consortium type (which can be used for profit, like Banks, and non-profit organizations, like Libraries) mention something about "collaborating or sharing" and to cover it all, something like:

"A membership Organization whose members collaborate or pool their resources together to achieve a common goal, and which might involve the ideas of coopetition, rather than competition, for the strategic benefit between all members. Some members still might compete in other areas."

thadguidry commented Jul 2, 2018

Circling back to this... we misplaced the common use case itself, not that of any legal relationships, but instead "to collaborate or share resources among members".

Wikipedia has the definition being "A consortium is an association of two or more individuals, companies, organizations or governments (or any combination of these entities) with the objective of participating in a common activity or pooling their resources for achieving a common goal". - and I highly suggest reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium The Latin etymology is interesting.

For profit example:
Hulu, the American video streaming service, is owned by a consortium of large media conglomerates including Time Warner, 21st Century Fox, Comcast, and the Walt Disney Company. <-- pooling of a lot of money, talent, and sharing of some attorneys :) really.

Non profit example:
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), is a consortium that standardizes web technologies like HTML, XML and CSS. <--sharing of ideas, some that could be patented, but never are for the benefit of mankind.

  • We need to nail down a much better definition for our Consortium type in pending.

I would much rather see our Consortium type (which can be used for profit, like Banks, and non-profit organizations, like Libraries) mention something about "collaborating or sharing" and to cover it all, something like:

"A membership Organization whose members collaborate or pool their resources together to achieve a common goal, and which might involve the ideas of coopetition, rather than competition, for the strategic benefit between all members. Some members still might compete in other areas."

@RichardWallis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@RichardWallis

RichardWallis Jul 2, 2018

Contributor

I agree that the current description is a little lacking.

Your suggestion and reference to Wikipedia are a good start to its improvement. I think references to strategic benefit and and competition may unnecessarily raise questions for those thinking of applying it.

How about:

A membership Organization of two or more individuals or organizations of any type, who collaborate with the objective of participating in a common activity or pooling their resources for achieving a common goal.

Contributor

RichardWallis commented Jul 2, 2018

I agree that the current description is a little lacking.

Your suggestion and reference to Wikipedia are a good start to its improvement. I think references to strategic benefit and and competition may unnecessarily raise questions for those thinking of applying it.

How about:

A membership Organization of two or more individuals or organizations of any type, who collaborate with the objective of participating in a common activity or pooling their resources for achieving a common goal.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment