[Infrastructure] Interested Party organization

[Wayne Thayer]

+1 - I think that will work.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:30 AM Ben Wilson via Infrastructure <
infrastructure at cabforum.org> wrote:

> That would work better-  I agree.
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:57 AM Martijn Katerbarg via Infrastructure <
> infrastructure at cabforum.org> wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>>
>>
>> It occurred to me that, while we decided to create 1 “interested parties”
>> member org to be used for all natural persons that are an IP, this might
>> have a negative effect when registering which group someone belongs to,
>> specially when we go down to mailing list management later on, and also
>> makes it difficult to register their IPR agreement.
>>
>>
>>
>> WG membership (and participant type of it) is currently registered based
>> on the member org, which would mean all these natural persons would share
>> the same membership. I don’t think we want that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there any objection to instead adding their full name as a member
>> organization and append it with something such as “(Private Person)”?
>> This would save us from creating (complicated) exceptions in code,
>> unwanted behaviour yet still allow us to differentiate between them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Martijn
>> _______________________________________________
>> Infrastructure mailing list
>> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
>> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
> https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20220325/2bfd40f4/attachment.html>