Adopters Page

[egekorkan]

It would be good to have a list of WoT adopters, i.e. organizations that use WoT in their products, tools or pretty much anything. Given that this needs confirmation from the organization and allowance to mention any organization on a W3C page, we should understand the rules.

[danielpeintner]

Once we manage to setup the adopters for thingweb on https://iot.eclipse.org/adopters/ we could use the companies listed there as well, right?

[koalie]

Hello!

From the W3C Marketing and Communications perspective:

I would object to such a listing on a page that is either the official WoT pages (https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/wot/ or https://www.w3.org/groups/ig/wot/) and I would also object to listing non-Members.

I might object to such a listing on the pages that the group maintains separately [but that are linked from the official pages] (https://www.w3.org/WoT/wg/ or https://www.w3.org/WoT/ig/) but perhaps there is a way to package such a list with prominent disclaimers and prominent information how other companies might opt in. I would advise that you seek legal advice from your companies’ departments.

Rationale:

• W3C is vendor-neutral.
• We do not promote non-Member companies unless we have a very compelling reason to, which I’m not finding in this case.
• W3C Members choose to participate at W3C and what they do or not with that Membership (adopting the work the consortium produces) is not for W3C to call out on its site. If you were to put together such a list, I expect that companies noticing would lodge a complaint, rightfully so.
• This is why we only offer Member testimonials opportunity to Members when we issues press releases: they are invited to opt-in to state their support.

This is completely different from a list of adopters which might single out companies or cast blame on others. It’s delicate. It may also be a lot of work to maintain (as a general principle, I mean, regardless of who does it).

My advice to you and the group: this has the potential of being a can of worm and a legal nightmare, I suggest the group focuses on something else.