Re: [science-iwg] Key outcomes from today's meeting

[Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/04/2014 2:55 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
> The feeling expressed by more than one person was there are some 
> institutions that will not be able to pay the dues for whatever reason 
> but would be significant participants in other ways. It was felt their 
> full participation including voting was crucial. 

It is the temporary nature of Guest memberships that I don't like. If 
this is a use case that the Science Working Group is expecting to have 
on an on-going basis why don't you create a permanent, voting, free, 
by-steering-committee-approval-only Institutional Member classification? 
The Science WG Institutional Members would have to be Associate Members 
of the Eclipse Foundation.

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223