These motions all make sense to me - particularly since creation of the PAPE
working group was delayed for so long due to specs council issues and I'm
watching the same play out with the current proposals. Having been there when
we came up with the idea of the specs council, the idea behind it was for it to
provide useful feedback cutting across the different specifications while
proposals were being discussed and to make a timely recommendation once a
proposal was formally submitted - NOT to be an impediment to the creation of
working groups or a hurdle that proposals had to clear.
Thanks for taking the time to write these up, Nat. They should make the specs
council reality more closely match the intent, and substantially improve the
present situation.
Thanks,
-- Mike
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Brian Kissel
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:17 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process
Nat, thank you for your proactive efforts to help improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of our spec process. As I understand it, the board needs to vote on
your motions, then present to the membership for approval. I second all four
of Nat's motions below for a vote by the board.
Hopefully we'll have the board polling tool working this week, so look for an
email notification for pending board votes on each of these motions.
If others would like to discuss Nat's proposals before the vote, please provide
your thoughts to the group.
Cheers,
Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Nat Sakimura
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:01 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process
Hi.
After having worked through PAPE 1.0 spec process, as well as some other spec
proposals, I noticed that there can be several things that we can do to smooth
the process. I think they were worthwhile excercises to find out these glitches.
Followings are the proposed motions that I would like the board to consider.
There are two types: one that can take effect immediately, and one that
requires board and membership voting.
I. For immediate implementation of the current process:
One of the obstacles that we have found during the process was that it was kind
of hard to get the specs council to deliver the recommendation in a timely
fashion. It has seen some improvement recently, but we want to make sure to
continue it. Thus, I would like to propose the following:
BE IT RESOLVED that the OIDF Committee Liason is directed to act as the
coordinator for the specification council so that specification council create
a recommendation for the membership about a formal working group proposal
within 15 days of the complete proposal being circulated on
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> to comply to the current OpenID
process.
II. Improvements of curent porcess
As a longer term solution, I would like to propose the following three motions.
The first two are to make sure the timely and effective response from the specs
council, and the last one is to protect the OpenID(TM) as well as to make it
easier to create a WG so that all the discussion will be done inside the WG and
the output is IPR clean.
BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to amend
the OpenID process document so that should the specifications council not
create a recommendation for the membership about a formal working group
proposal within 15 days of the complete proposal being circulated on
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, then the proposal may proceed to a
membership vote for approval.
BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to amend
the OpenID process document so that should specs council members not
participate in the discussion of two consecutive working group proposals, they
will be deemed to have resigned, and new specs council members who are
committed to participating in the process will be appointed to replace them.
BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to amend
the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft may claim OpenID trademark
until it is ratified to be an implementor's draft status or full specification
status.
Please note that these consitute the core decision for IPR and process, so it
will have to go through the membership vote as well after creating the actual
errata.
Cheers,
=nat
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3768 (20090115) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3769 (20090115) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
