jcpnext4
  1. jcpnext4
  2. JCPNEXT4-11

Member vs. Member Representative confusion

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Minor Minor
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      An Expert can be either a Member (company) or Member Representative (person).

      A Spec Lead is an Expert.

      A Spec Lead Member is an individual JCP member (Member?), or the company that
      employs the Spec Lead.

      It seems weird that an Expert can be a company or a person and thus that a
      Spec Lead can be a company or a person, and then we need Spec Lead Member
      to refer to one of the cases.

      Wouldn't it be simpler for Expert and Spec Lead to always be a person, and then
      have Spec Lead Member (and Expert Member, if needed), to cover the cases where
      you need to refer to the company?

      Or, define Expert Representative and Spec Lead Representative to parallel
      Member Representative.

      Depends on whether most uses of (e.g.) Spec Lead intend to refer to the person
      or the company.

      It seems weird for Expert to be a company since part of the definition is
      "has expert knowledge" and "an active practitioner in the technology". Can
      a company do either of those?

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          heathervc added a comment -

          Patrick will address as part of Issue #2 Definitions.

          Show
          heathervc added a comment - Patrick will address as part of Issue #2 Definitions.
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment -

          In version 3 of the revised Process Doc:

          • Deleted the definition for Spec Lead Member.
          • Redefined Spec Lead as either an individual Member or the Member Representative of an organization.
          • Deleted the definition for Expert and replaced it in the text with "member of the Expert Group".

          I may have missed something - please check!

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - In version 3 of the revised Process Doc: Deleted the definition for Spec Lead Member. Redefined Spec Lead as either an individual Member or the Member Representative of an organization. Deleted the definition for Expert and replaced it in the text with "member of the Expert Group". I may have missed something - please check!
          Hide
          jpampuch added a comment -

          This issue has been partially addressed by a substantial clarification of JCP members in section 3.1, as well as clarification of the definition of a Specification Lead.

          However, the EDR Defines an expert group as comprised of JCP members; this might need clarification in that some JCP members (e.g., Affiliate Members) would not be eligible.

          Further, part of the issue specified here was that previously, an "Expert", could by its definition, either be a person or an entity, which seemed inappropriate, as it is hard to see that a corporate entity can be an expert; this is a role that can only be satisfied by an individual.

          In the current draft, notably, this would mean that a corporate member would continue in the role of EG member, even if the member representative were to leave the EG for some reason. This may or may not be the intent, and may or may not be desirable, depending from what perspective you look at it. In addition, it would suggest that a corporate JCP member could have multiple representatives, which again, may or may not be the intent of the EC.

          This issue may not be fully resolved yet, and I propose that it be revisited at a future working group meeting.

          Show
          jpampuch added a comment - This issue has been partially addressed by a substantial clarification of JCP members in section 3.1, as well as clarification of the definition of a Specification Lead. However, the EDR Defines an expert group as comprised of JCP members; this might need clarification in that some JCP members (e.g., Affiliate Members) would not be eligible. Further, part of the issue specified here was that previously, an "Expert", could by its definition, either be a person or an entity, which seemed inappropriate, as it is hard to see that a corporate entity can be an expert; this is a role that can only be satisfied by an individual. In the current draft, notably, this would mean that a corporate member would continue in the role of EG member, even if the member representative were to leave the EG for some reason. This may or may not be the intent, and may or may not be desirable, depending from what perspective you look at it. In addition, it would suggest that a corporate JCP member could have multiple representatives, which again, may or may not be the intent of the EC. This issue may not be fully resolved yet, and I propose that it be revisited at a future working group meeting.
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment - - edited

          John Pampuch said (the quoted text below is his - my responses are unquoted and interspersed):

          "However, the EDR Defines an expert group as comprised of JCP members; this might need clarification in that some JCP members (e.g., Affiliate Members) would not be eligible."

          We clarify elsewhere that some JCP members are not eligible to join EGs so I don't believe it's necessary to duplicate that language here (though we could say "comprised of eligible JCP members" if you like).

          "Further, part of the issue specified here was that previously, an "Expert", could by its definition, either be a person or an entity, which seemed inappropriate, as it is hard to see that a corporate entity can be an expert; this is a role that can only be satisfied by an individual.
          In the current draft, notably, this would mean that a corporate member would continue in the role of EG member, even if the member representative were to leave the EG for some reason. This may or may not be the intent, and may or may not be desirable, depending from what perspective you look at it. In addition, it would suggest that a corporate JCP member could have multiple representatives, which again, may or may not be the intent of the EC."

          Indeed: if the Member Representative representing company X on an EG leaves the company typically will appoint another representative. Also we have never forbidden corporate members from having multiple representatives on an EG, and I don't think we should, although obviously if an EG was dominated by multiple members from a single organization that would be a concern.

          "This issue may not be fully resolved yet, and I propose that it be revisited at a future working group meeting."

          I don't think we really need to, but will be happy to have further discussion.

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - - edited John Pampuch said (the quoted text below is his - my responses are unquoted and interspersed): "However, the EDR Defines an expert group as comprised of JCP members; this might need clarification in that some JCP members (e.g., Affiliate Members) would not be eligible." We clarify elsewhere that some JCP members are not eligible to join EGs so I don't believe it's necessary to duplicate that language here (though we could say "comprised of eligible JCP members" if you like). "Further, part of the issue specified here was that previously, an "Expert", could by its definition, either be a person or an entity, which seemed inappropriate, as it is hard to see that a corporate entity can be an expert; this is a role that can only be satisfied by an individual. In the current draft, notably, this would mean that a corporate member would continue in the role of EG member, even if the member representative were to leave the EG for some reason. This may or may not be the intent, and may or may not be desirable, depending from what perspective you look at it. In addition, it would suggest that a corporate JCP member could have multiple representatives, which again, may or may not be the intent of the EC." Indeed: if the Member Representative representing company X on an EG leaves the company typically will appoint another representative. Also we have never forbidden corporate members from having multiple representatives on an EG, and I don't think we should, although obviously if an EG was dominated by multiple members from a single organization that would be a concern. "This issue may not be fully resolved yet, and I propose that it be revisited at a future working group meeting." I don't think we really need to, but will be happy to have further discussion.
          Hide
          jpampuch added a comment -

          Based on Patrick's clarification, I believe this issue can be closed.

          Show
          jpampuch added a comment - Based on Patrick's clarification, I believe this issue can be closed.

            People

            • Assignee:
              pcurran
              Reporter:
              Bill Shannon
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              2 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: