David: 1) Yes, we need to improve the process
2) We need to work with the current process until we have it improved. 3) Please create the specs-council list so that we can archive our conversations and we can approve the outstanding WG. The holidays are almost upon us! -- Dick On 17-Dec-08, at 9:22 AM, David Recordon wrote: > Yeah, this is something we're working on taking care of. Right now > the challenge is: > - There are a few proposals for working groups with very little > consensus among the community around any of them > - Most of the working group proposals are still drafts > - Mike Jones has a thread going with other specs council members > about how we need to respond to these proposals > - The specs council does not currently have a mailing list and there > is a struggle between creating another low traffic list versus using > an existing list. I've been asked to make a list, which I can do, > though there is little to no consensus that we should do so > > I then personally have a larger struggle with the process in place. I > strongly believe that it does not do good for OpenID to have it pushed > in divergent technical directions (we've seen what happened with 2.0 > as it tried to please everyone) though feel that the community has > very little power to prevent that. While I could drive toward > consensus on the specs@ mailing list that a proposal still needs > changes to fit along with the direction of OpenID, technically the > specs council would be hard pressed to use that as a reason to not > approve a working group. > > The specs council is given a list of four reasons that it can not > approve a new working group. To take a lack of consensus on the > specs@ mailing list as input, it would have to decide either "that > the proposal contravenes the OpenID community’s purpose" (where the > Foundation says "OpenID is a set of freely available enabling > technologies that facilitate individuals to use their identity and > profile from one web resource to access many others in a > decentralized, secure, and easy fashion built upon existing web > technologies.") or "that the proposed WG does not have sufficient > support to succeed or to deliver proposed deliverables within > projected completion dates." While significant part of the technical > community might disagree with a working group proposal, I don't see > there being a way (as a member of the specs council) to in good faith > decide that it contravenes the purpose or except in extremely grave > cases that it would not succeed. > > From there the proposal goes to a vote of the membership which is > structured in such a way as to pass with a quorum requirement of 20% > of the membership or 20 members, whichever is greater, and a simple > majority vote. > > Beyond all of that, the quickest that a working group can be formed is > no more than 15 days of review by the specs council (which we're > failing at right now), plus a 14 day notice period of the membership > vote, plus a 7 day voting period. This thus means that by our current > process it takes approximately a month for new work to begin. > > From there, the fastest that a working group could produce a final > specification is theoretically 120 days. The IPR Process requires a > review period of at least 60 days (which PAPE is going through right > now) for a final specification. From there, assuming that no one > objects around IPR or the board for legal liability, a 45 day review > period for the membership of the Foundation is started which results > in a 14 day voting period to approval the specification and officially > call it "OpenID <something>". This thus means that from the day the > working group feels they have their final draft, it will take 119 days > (~4 months) for the specification to go through all of the needed IPR > review steps. > > I know that I was intimately involved in creating this process but the > more that I see it in practice, the more that I know we must change it > and understand why new innovative work like the OpenID and OAuth > Hybrid occurs outside the purview of the OpenID Foundation. (And yes, > I understand how I'm being a bit hypocritical by saying that getting > started should be easier yet only for the work that a core group feels > fits into what OpenID is which can be done in many different ways.) > > I guess my point is that we need to make it much easier to get > started, though make sure it is hard for something to be called > "OpenID" when it clearly doesn't use existing OpenID technology or > does something wildly different. Right now our process is loaded up > at the start and at the end, which means that people are going and > starting elsewhere. > > --David > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 8:09 AM, Scott Kveton wrote: > >>> It might not be the board issue, but there are several WG proosals >>> sitting there. According to the OpenID process, spec comittee needs >>> issue a recomendatiom within two weeks so that the working group >>> creation voting can take place. >> >> Is this something for the specifications council?: >> >> http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID_Foundation/SC >> >> I believe this is out of scope for the Exec. Committee. >> >> - Scott >> >> >> >> >> >>> =...@tokyo via iPhone >>> >>> On 2008/12/18, at 0:41, "Scott Kveton" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Unless anyone has anything particularly pressing to discuss, I'd >>>> like >>>> to cancel the Executive Committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow at >>>> 11am PST. >>>> >>>> If there is something you'd like to discuss and still feel like we >>>> need a meeting, by all means, let me know and we can rethink. >>>> >>>> FYI, >>>> >>>> - Scott >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> board mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >>> _______________________________________________ >>> board mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
