On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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! I think list is already done. [email protected] . Please zoom ahead! [?] > > -- 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 > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/
<<330.gif>>
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
