Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Affiliate Memberships are undefined in the Process Document #26

Closed
dwsinger opened this issue Apr 21, 2017 · 8 comments
Closed

Affiliate Memberships are undefined in the Process Document #26

dwsinger opened this issue Apr 21, 2017 · 8 comments
Assignees
@wseltzer
Labels
Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion DoC This has been referenced from a Disposition of Comments (or predates the use of DoCs) Type: Editorial improvements
Milestone
Process 2018

Comments

@dwsinger
Copy link
Contributor

Transferred from https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/173
State: Raised
@dwsinger dwsinger added Raised and removed Raised labels Apr 21, 2017
@chaals
Copy link
Contributor

chaals commented May 8, 2017

Process does not define different classes of Membership - the underlying assumption is that all Members have the same rights and obligations, and the price they pay for Membership is a detail of geography, wheeling and dealing, and other historical accidents.

@dwsinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Chaals, you are missing that this paragraph in 2.1

W3C does not have a class of membership tailored to, or priced for individuals. However, an individual may join W3C as an Affiliate Member. In this case the same restrictions pertaining to related Members apply when the individual also represents another W3C Member.

talks about affiliate members, when there is no such category (is there)? We should retain only the first sentence.

@chaals
Copy link
Contributor

chaals commented Jun 15, 2017

I'm not sure why we should retain the first sentence either, actually.

@dwsinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

It happens to be true, though I don't really know whether it needs saying.

@dwsinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

At minimum we should shrink the paragraph to remove the mention of Affiliate. A re-write is welcome.

@dwsinger
Copy link
Contributor Author

we note that the FAQ disagrees. Team to to look into harmonization!

@wseltzer wseltzer mentioned this issue Aug 18, 2017
Merged
@wseltzer
Copy link
Member

See PR #64

@chaals
Copy link
Contributor

chaals commented Aug 29, 2017

closed by #64

@chaals chaals closed this as completed Aug 29, 2017
@frivoal frivoal added Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion DoC This has been referenced from a Disposition of Comments (or predates the use of DoCs) labels Dec 9, 2018
@frivoal frivoal added this to the Process 2018 milestone Feb 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@wseltzer wseltzer

Labels
Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion DoC This has been referenced from a Disposition of Comments (or predates the use of DoCs) Type: Editorial improvements
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Process 2018
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@frivoal @wseltzer @chaals @dwsinger