JCPNEXT4-71: Update the Workflow chart

[apastsya]

Jira issue originally created by user pcurran:

The Workflow document (posted in the Document Archive) is seriously out of date, since it still refers to Exhibit B rather than to the Employer Contributor agreement.

It should be reviewed and updated.

[apastsya]

Attachments:

• JCP Joining Process_v10.pdf

• JCP Joining Process_v11.pdf

• JCP Joining Process_v11.png

• JCP Joining Process_v8.pdf

• JCP Joining Process_v9.pdf

• JoiningOptionsWorkflow_v5.pdf

• JoiningOptionsWorkflow_v6.pdf

• JoiningOptionsWorkflow_v7.pdf

• PC-FlowchartComments-v1.txt

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Added in 'Is your employer willing to Join the JCP' step in the workflow and adjusted the layout to suit. Open for comment

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Added Completion statement to Workflow after employer has joined

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

My comments on the flowchart.

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

Unfortunately I've found a number of additional problems with version 7 of the flowchart.

For details see the attached file PC-FlowchartComments-v1.html

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Thanks for the feedback - I think that we should aim for separate charts now. I'll have a go at crafting them this week and re-post.

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

Please change Affiliate to Associate while you're making the changes.

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Working on these changes

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Page 1 is the Joining Process workflow

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Slight modification for Observers

[apastsya]

Comment created by heathervc:

Thanks, John! Need to update the chart to replace the term Affiliate with Associate.

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Modifications

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Latest version with Changes from Meeting

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Visio file of the Joining process (so others can make edits)

[apastsya]

Comment created by heathervc:

Version 9 addresses all remaining edits with exception of the hyperlinks. We will resolve the issue but leave open until Final Release to add the links in the versions to be posted on JCP.org. We will also make clear that version 9 is the 'Final'. Publish as part of Proposed Final Draft.

[apastsya]

Comment created by heathervc:

Version 9 addresses all remaining edits with exception of the hyperlinks. We will resolve the issue but leave open until Final Release to add the links in the versions to be posted on JCP.org. We will also make clear that version 9 is the 'Final'. Publish as part of Proposed Final Draft.

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

In version 9 the Individual workflow states that if you are willing and able to sign the JSPA and license IP but are not employed your only option is to sign the Associate Membership Agreement.

This doesn't seem right, since it would prohibit those who are self-employed (such as Werner Keil) from joining as full members.

I thought we had agreed that those who are not employed are eligible for full membership, while those who are employed can join as full members only if their employers sign the ECA.

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

See my last comment. We certainly don't want to prohibit the self-employed from joining as full members. I thought we also did not want to prohibit those who are unemployed or students.

As written, we seem to permit individuals to join as full members only if they are employed and their employer is willing to sign the ECA.

[apastsya]

Comment created by heathervc:

This is intent; it would be clarified if we add text to the diamond: Are you employed as a University Professor? Revision would read: Are you self-employed, a student or employed as a University Professor?

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

Yes - that would fix it...

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

I am not sure it does fix it. Self employed are still employed, but agreed that the unemployed should not be excluded.

The workflow maybe should be 'Are you employed by a commercial organisation (excluding Universities)'. For Professors, Students, Unemployed etc they can proceed to be full members. For Individuals who are subject to being part of a Commercial Organisation the workflow then continues. I will upload a variation for review.

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Modified not to exclude the Individuals who are in the class of Unemployed/Students etc from Joining as Full Members

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

Version 10 of the workflow document still isn't right. It fixes the previous problem whereby individuals who are not employed could not join as full members, but now it does not permit University professors to join as full members without an ECA from their employer.

Sorry :(

Also, the language "Are you employed by a Commercial Organization (Excluding Universities)?" seems odd, since Universities aren't usually thought of as commercial organizations and more importantly, we want to treat non-commercial employers that are not universities (non-profits such as Eclipse, for example) in the same way we treat commercial employers.

So: assuming we keep that box, I would simply label it "are you employed?" Now that I look more closely I also note that the box containing "Employer Joins as Commercial Organization (See workflow)" should actually say " Employer Joins as Commercial Organization or Non-Profit (See workflow)".

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Made changes as per Patrick's comments

[apastsya]

Comment created by weirj535:

Image of Final Doc

[apastsya]

Comment created by heathervc:

Complete.

[apastsya]

Issue was closed with resolution "Fixed"