Read Section 5.1 of the Process: > An OpenID Specification begins as a “draft” and retains > this status until approved as an Implementers Draft. An > Implementers Draft may be further revised, and any > revised Implementers Draft is deemed a “draft” until it is > approved as a new Implementers Draft. The most recent > Implementers Draft may be approved as a Final Specification.
This very clearly states that until a WG approves something as an Implementers Draft, it is just a "draft". It then states that "the most recent Implementers Draft may be approved as a Final Specification." If we look at PAPE Draft 7, it says nothing other than "Draft" on it. Yes, this all must be clarified but I strongly believe the PAPE WG is not correctly following the Process. I see no reason not to approve the PAPE spec, but we either need to correctly follow the Process or change it to fit what we want to do. --David On Dec 23, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Mike Jones wrote: > This same patent promise also applies to Final Specifications. That > allows implementers to implement Final Specifications during the 60- > day evaluation period, just like they can safely implement > Implementer's Drafts during their 45-day evaluation period. > > The intent of the procedures was to allow working groups to make the > call whether additional input is definitely needed, in which case an > Implementer's Draft is appropriate, or whether the working group > believes that no additional input is likely needed, in which case a > Final Specification is appropriate. In both cases there are public > review periods of 45 or 60 days, respectively, in case the community > believes that changes are necessary before an approval vote by the > membership. > > To the extent that people believe that it's ambiguous in the current > procedures whether this choice is in the hands of the Working Group, > as David apparently does, we should add clarifying language to the > procedures to make this plain to all that this decision is up to the > Working Group. > > Cheers, > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of David Recordon > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:57 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: OpenID List > Subject: Re: [OpenID] [OpenID board] PAPE Vote Discussion > > When you publish an Implementor's Draft, it binds contributors to > their IP contributions. A WG can publish an unlimited number of > drafts and through the draft phase a contributor can drop out and not > be bound to make a patent promise on drafts they've contributed to. > Once you get an Implementor's Draft, contributors make a limited > promise during the period of review (so that people can safely > implement it for testing) and then at the end of the review period > unless you've raised an objection, you're bound to make a patent > promise on that Implementor's Draft even if you later withdraw. Thus > if a WG publishes Draft 3 and I drop out afterwards, I have no > committment around patents. However, if I stay through the review > period of Implementor's Draft 4 and don't raise objections, if I then > drop out I am still committed to what was in Implementor's Draft 4. > > This is covered in Section 3 of the IPR Policy: >> 3. Withdrawal. A Contributor may withdraw from a Work Group at any >> time by providing at >> least seven (7) days' written notice to the OpenID Foundation. The >> withdrawing Contributor will, >> in perpetuity, remain subject to Section V, as applied to copyrights >> in any Contributions made >> before the effective date of such withdrawal, and to the limited >> patent promise in Section VI.1, as >> applied to any Implementers Drafts or Final Specifications accepted >> by the Contributor. A >> Contributor has "accepted" an Implementers Draft or Final >> Specification if the Contributor (in >> accordance with the applicable OpenID Process and after a formal >> call by an editor of the applicable >> Specification to recommend adoption of the then-current draft >> Specification as an Implementers >> Draft or an applicable Implementers Draft as a Final Specification): >> (a) expressly voted to >> recommend adoption (or otherwise recommended adoption, in writing in >> (or on the record of), any >> assessment of consensus); (b) failed timely to vote to recommend >> disapproval of such adoption (or >> otherwise to disapprove of such adoption, in writing in (or on the >> record of) any assessment of >> consensus); or (c) expressly and timely voted to recommend >> disapproval of such adoption (other >> otherwise disapproved of such adoption, in writing in (or on the >> record of) any assessment of >> consensus), yet failed to provide to the OpenID Foundation notice of >> intent to withdraw, or notice >> of an appeal to the OpenID board of directors, within forty-five >> (45) days after the Specification >> editor announces either that the Work Group has reached consensus >> (or has voted) to recommend >> adoption. If, however, a Contributor timely requests appeal as >> provided in the foregoing sentence, >> then: (y) the time to serve notice of withdrawal (solely for >> Contributors seeking appeal) will be >> deemed extended until fourteen (14) days after the OpenID Foundation >> board of directors >> announces its decision or recommendation on the appeal; and (z) any >> effect of the adoption of the >> applicable Implementers Draft or Final Specification will be deemed >> stayed until seven (7) days >> after any recommendation of the OpenID Foundation board of >> directors has been voted upon by the >> OpenID membership as provided in the applicable OpenID Process. > > --David > > On Dec 23, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Martin Atkins wrote: > >> David Recordon wrote: >>> I'm also unconvinced that the working group (which I'm a part of) >>> followed the process as outlined for the work leading up to a >>> membership >>> vote. While I tried to discuss this on the PAPE mailing list >>> yesterday, >>> Mike had the opposite interpretation and seems to have moved ahead >>> anyway. While I believe that the PAPE spec should be approved (and >>> have >>> voted to do so) I agree with Chris' concerns and the one I raised >>> yesterday about the process being unclear as to if the WG correctly >>> followed it or not. >>> >> >> The bone of contention here seems to be that the PAPE working group >> didn't publish an "Implementer's Draft". >> >> What are the disadvantages of not publishing an implementer's draft, >> other than just that it appears to break policy? >> >> In other words, can we just remove that requirement from the process? >> I'd rather not have a needless extra step if it's not useful... but >> I'm >> sure it was put in there for a good reason. What was the thinking >> behind it? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general > _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
