Also agreed, thx Nat On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Mike Jones <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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] 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], 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 > >
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
