Invited Experts without Member-only access
jyasskin opened this issue · 4 comments
https://www.w3.org/invited-experts/#memaccess says that
At the discretion of the Team Contact, or at the request of the invited expert themselves, W3C Member access may not be granted. This option accounts for the Invited Experts who do not wish to be responsible for managing member-confidential information, or are unable to.
Additionally, on a case by case basis, a group may define in its charter that invitations to invited experts will not include W3C Member access.
And the PING charter and draft SING charter do so define.
However, I can't find wording in the Process to support this. The only statement I see is
“Member-only” information is available to authorized parties only, including representatives of Member organizations, Invited Experts, ...
Am I missing something, should the Process endorse the existence of Invited Experts without Member-only access, or should the charters stop claiming that they don't grant Member-only access?
should the Process endorse the existence of Invited Experts without Member-only access
I do support the existence, as we want to groups like SING to have more open participation (as we do with CGs), but without necessarily giving member access, which could lead to members reconsidering the value of membership.
Some clarification of public participants in IGs could be useful. For example, does subscribing to the mailing list enable anyone to join IG meetings or contribute to IG reports? If not, it seems like the criteria in section 3.4.3.3, referenced from 3.4.3.4 are needed for IG participants.
Also, mailing lists are becoming less commonly used now as groups tend to prefer GitHub issues, so I'm not sure this is a good criteria any more. And WGs also have mailing lists, so what distinction is being made between IGs and WGs there? Is someone who subscribes and posts to a WG mailing list not a public participant to a WG?
https://www.w3.org/invited-experts/#memaccess was deliberate (see https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/3), so the Process is the one that needs tweaking.
Should we go with something like:
“Member-only” information is available to authorized parties only, including representatives of Member organizations, most Invited Experts (See https://www.w3.org/invited-experts/#memaccess), ...
I'd suggest not saying "most", so:
“Member-only” information is available to authorized parties only, including representatives of Member organizations, Invited Experts (as described in https://www.w3.org/invited-experts/#memaccess), ...
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Clarifying Invited Experts without Member-only access, and agreed to the following:
RESOLVED: Accept ChrisN's wording
The full IRC log of that discussion
<fantasai> Subtopic: Clarifying Invited Experts without Member-only access<fantasai> github: https://github.com//issues/900
<fantasai> florian: Process implies that all IEs have access to Member-only info; but only some do.
<fantasai> ... Issue is about clarifying
<fantasai> ... One changes is adding a parenthetical linking to the IE access policy
<fantasai> ... Second is switching to saying "most"; ChrisN suggests not adding this.
<fantasai> Two possible wordings are https://github.com//issues/900#issuecomment-2231131404 and https://github.com//issues/900#issuecomment-2231302927
<fantasai> PROPOSED: Accept ChrisN's wording
<cwilso> +1
<fantasai> +1
<florian> +1
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Accept ChrisN's wording