Content Licensing

[Deledrius]

The Guild of Messengers discussed signing as a group, and concluded that some of us (self included) weren't comfortable with any one Messenger endorsing on behalf of the whole group. I know that sounds a bit GoGish... normally, we have no problem with any one of our members speaking "on behalf" of the guild, but when it's an endorsement issue such as in this case, that's a bit more sensitive, particularly for a group that tries to stay neutral/factual and not often cast opinions.

The discussion was held where all Messengers would at least be informed about the Licensing proposal work, and could make their own independent decision on whether to sign.

If you don't mind my asking, what aspects of the text do some of them take issue with that prevents them from wanting a collective endorsement? It might be nice to attempt addressing those concerns if possible.

Not that there's a problem with turning it down, but if there's a way to help that we should try.

Edit: Having read the thread now where this discussion took place, I see that it is more that the Messengers would prefer not to endorse anything, not that they don't want to endorse this. That is a position I can easily understand.

[Leonardo]

Nobody that I know of is having issues with any part of the proposal. We started wondering about the difference between individual signatures of all the member vs one single signature of the Guild and then we considered this particular case and from the words of JW we got the meaning that it may not be the case to sign as GoMe. But really no one of us see a problem with the proposal, individually we support it.
For the complete discussion: http://www.guildofmessengers.com/forum/ ... g-proposal

To get back on topic: I see your points guys and I agree that real names can also be useful from a formal/legal point of view, make it look more professional. I was just thinking about it from the practical point of view asking myself "how useful would be my real name on that?" and I answered myself that it would not be useful, unless Tony wants to look for me on Facebook or Google+

[JWPlatt]

Mac nominated me to deliver the letter. That's fine unless there are any objections.

• Please fill in your signature on the wiki with username, optional real name, affiliation, optionally on behalf of, and optional address.
• Please PM to me with subject "Confidential" your personal info, from above, that you wish to appear on the letter to Cyan but not publicly in the wiki.
• I will commit my textual contribution to the wiki within two days.
• This will be left open through the weekend to give review time as suggested by Christian Walther.
• I will create a PDF without confidential info included on Monday and provide a link to it here for comment.
• I will send it on Tuesday (to give Cyan Monday to clear weekend emails and have a fresh start Tuesday ), in one week, with personal info included.

Did I miss anything?

[Deledrius]

That sounds like a solid plan. I especially appreciate sending it on Tuesday for the reasons you list.

[Malfhok]

Is that the signer's e-mail address you're after?

[JWPlatt]

No, mailing address. I doubt email addresses will be that effective. Let me know if you think that's wrong. Either would be optional, though several people have already mentioned their approval of it.

[Malfhok]

Just clarifying before I send the wrong one.

[Mac_Fife]

So, just to be clear in my own mind on a couple of things:
1. Personal information should be sent to JW by PM unless the contributor is happy to "publish" that on the wiki?
2. Individuals may state an affiliation even though they may not be signing as the designated representative of that entity?

[JWPlatt]

1. Yes.
2. Yes. A designated representative would preface the organization with "on behalf of." The difference being, for example, "GuildOfWriters.org" for affiliation and "on behalf of The Guild of Writers" as a designated representative.

A full example might be, to name names, "'Hoikas,' Adam Johnson, GuildOfWriters.com[, on behalf of The Guild of Writers[, <address>]].

[Leonardo]

Do you think Cyan will be able to notice the difference between affiliation and "on behalf of"?
I mean, one could just assume we just signed incoherently from each other and understand that people are speaking for their groups instead of just wanting to give a context to their names.

Maybe add a little disclaimer above the signatures

People do no represent their respective group/guild/organization unless the signatues explicitly states "on behalf of...". Signatures without that mark include an organization name just to give the context of the person who signed.