Would be great if Nat would add this to the wiki -- if only to try out such a process and determine whether it works or not. I fear that we're losing a lot of context/detail/accuracy by posting these kinds of communications in multi-threaded emails.
Chris On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> wrote: > Nat, is there a more current version than this? The actual text of your > proposal, which I took from your email, was the text I was intending to put > into the board polling tool. > > If there is a more current version, please send it to me. > > Cheers, > > Brian > ============== > Brian Kissel > Cell: 503.866.4424 > Fax: 503.296.5502 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Recordon > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 3:36 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [board-private] Reminder: OIDF BOD vote on Nat's 4 spec process > improvement motions > > Hey Brian, > I don't believe this captures the latest motions that Nat made. > > --David > > On Jan 16, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Brian Kissel wrote: > >> When: Friday, January 23, 2009 6:00 AM-6:30 AM (GMT-08:00) Pacific >> Time (US & Canada). >> >> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* >> >> FYI, this is a reminder that the online vote for Nat's four motions >> will start on Friday Jan 23rd. >> >> 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. >> >> <mime-attachment.ics>_______________________________________________ >> board-private mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board-private > > _______________________________________________ > board-private mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board-private > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 3772 (20090116) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 3772 (20090116) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > -- Chris Messina Citizen-Participant & Open Web Advocate-at-Large factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org citizenagency.com # vidoop.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
