On 12/03/2008 10:28 PM, Dick Hardt:
The original message showed that a company OpenQ had announced a product called OpenID.
OK, yes now I understand. Small oversight on their behalf I guess ;-)
How the board was going to approach OpenQ was moved to board-private.
Not sure why that's needed. I mean, contacting the lawyers and have them run isn't such a big deal to have it hidden away. Anything else (besides a polite note to them requesting immediate removal by the same lawyer representing the OpenID foundation) I can't see what should be private nor how such a knowledge would give them any advantage. Do you see one?
I bring up the volunteer aspect to highlight that resources are limited. There is only so much that can be done and we prioritize where efforts are spent.
Yes of course....however I'm still baffled how an non-profit organization in form of a foundation which such formidable financial backing has problems putting the easiest things in place. Of course if this organization is willing to spend 10K on a years hosting (I know you were against it), but besides that is hardly capable of getting an election going (including needed software) than nothing should surprise really. I don't know if it's only me, but somehow something somewhere doesn't sound quite right. Whining about "we are only volunteers" doesn't help, some efficiency and management perhaps would.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
