Re: [wg-d] Working Group Membership

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

>> >It may be "odd" to some.  I don't find it odd at all.  Constituency 
>> >folks can "participate" as individuals. 

>> Well, just so. I don't know any other way for a company or organization 
>> to participate except through its employees or designated 
>> representatives. The question is whether you require "Jane Doe" to 
>> participate as "Jane Doe" or allow her to participate as "Jane Doe, 
>> employee of MegaCorp." The latter seems far preferable, as it permits 
>> disclosure of one's business affiliation and interests.

>Am I "Karl Auerbach, employee of Cisco Systems", "Karl Auerbach, employee
>of TheatreWorks", "Karl Auerbach, CTO of InterWorking Labs", ... ?

>Remember, our use of the net and our interests are not necessarily related
>solely and uniquely to an employer.

True. But you've always made it clear that you're in this space as Karl 
Auerbach, not Karl "an employee of Cisco." But I think it's equally clear 
that others are participating on behalf of their companies and are being 
paid to do so. (And I see nothing wrong with that, by the way.)

>To me it makes more sense to say "participate as individuals" and add "and
>you must disclose relevant conflicts or relationships".

What if we just say "individuals participate," which would leave open the 
possibility of participating as an individual or as a designated 
representative of some group or company. The question then simply becomes 
one of disclosure. Is it required? recommended? how detailed? enforced? 
how enforced?

      -- Bret