Oops. I was going back the mails reverse chronological order... I saw OAuth hybrid was recommended. Sorry about that. That is a progress, though I am kind of interested to see who among the specs council really responded.
=nat On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmmm. While this option sounds attractive, we might want to take two phased > approach. > I have just made motions for the urgent things. If we start requirement > gathering at this stage, it will delay these changes. > > So, my proposal is to do what the board vote approved in parallel to the > longer term ammendment with requirement gatherings. (BTW, there are bunch of > things that I want to list under this mid-term project.) > > I will draft the ammendment to the Process document this weekend. > > One of the motion is unrelated to the Process document, but to assign the > committee liaison the power to take an initiative to facilitate and advance > the specs process. i.e., David is now officially empowered to chase down the > specs council members as well as to help out the proposers so that the > process goes as quick as it can. > > I have not seen much progress on OpenID+OAuth hybrid and CX specs council > process. I hope this will improve the situation. > > =nat > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:10 AM, David Recordon <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Given that there are some other things we'd like to amend to the IPR >> Process, should we try to capture the entire list of changes we wish to make >> so we only need to do this once? >> >> On Jan 29, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Brian Kissel wrote: >> >> OK thanks Mike. Do we have a "members" email address to start the >> membership notification period? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Brian >> *==============* >> *Brian Kissel* >> *Cell: 503.866.4424* >> *Fax: 503.296.5502* >> >> *From:* [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> >> ] *On Behalf Of *Mike Jones >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:55 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - >> results are in >> >> We can not amend the process doc without a membership vote, and the >> following criteria being met, as per section 3.4 of the process: >> >> · 21 day notice period >> · Multiple electronic notice required (if the OIDF member has >> provided multiple addresses), including to a "legal contact," if provided >> · Prominent posting (at least 21 days in advance of the >> beginning of the voting period) on homepage of OIDF website >> · 7 day voting period after end of notice period (if vote is not >> taken at a properly-noticed meeting) >> · OIDF members may designate a proxy from the member's >> registered OpenID identifier specifying the designated proxy's OpenID >> identifier >> · Any approved change is prospective only >> · Approval of a change requires *either* of the following: >> *Approval Option 1* >> o Quorum of greater of 60% of OIDF membership or 30 OIDF members (*no >> bypass option*) *and* >> o Supermajority vote of those constituting a quorum, plus a majority >> concurrence by the OIDF Board >> *Approval Option 2* >> o Quorum of greater of 30% of OIDF membership or 30 OIDF members (*no >> bypass option*) *and* >> o Majority vote of those constituting a quorum, plus a supermajority >> concurrence by the entire OIDF Board (where "absents" and "abstains" count >> as "no" votes) >> Any change to the IPR Policy or Processes will not be effective until 21 >> days after approval, during which time then-current Contributors may >> withdraw in accordance with the IPR Policy or Processes as they existed >> prior to the change >> >> Nat could produce an updated draft of the doc (which should have tracked >> changes on relative to the approved version) for legal membership review >> prior to the vote, but none of this can go into effect until the membership >> vote has occurred and met the criteria above. >> >> -- Mike >> >> *From:* [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]> >> ] *On Behalf Of *Brian Kissel >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:29 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - >> results are in >> >> Thanks to everyone for your timely voting. While the polls are still >> open, all 4 of the motions made by Nat have passed. Nat can you take care >> of modifying the OpenID process document? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Brian >> *==============* >> *Brian Kissel* >> *Cell: 503.866.4424* >> *Fax: 503.296.5502* >> >> *From:* Brian Kissel >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:24 PM >> *To:* '[email protected] <%[email protected]>' >> *Subject:* RE: 4 spec process improvement board votes - please go to the >> website and vote >> >> Hello All, just a reminder to go to the website and vote on these 4 >> motions. To date we only have 5 votes and we need 7 for a majority >> decision. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Brian >> *==============* >> *Brian Kissel* >> *Cell: 503.866.4424* >> *Fax: 503.296.5502* >> >> *From:* Brian Kissel >> *Sent:* Saturday, January 24, 2009 1:16 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* 4 spec process improvement board votes >> >> Hello OIDF board members, >> >> The four spec process improvement motions made by Nat Sakimura and >> seconded by Brian Kissel have now completed the seven day notification and >> discussion period. Each motion is now available for board voting on the >> OIDF polling tool. A simple majority vote by 7 or more board members is >> required for approval on each motion. The vote ends on January 31st, >> 2009. >> >> Regards, >> >> Brian >> *___________* >> * * >> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>* >> *CEO, JanRain - OpenID-enable your websites, customers, partners, and >> employees* >> 5331 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 375, Portland, OR 97239 >> *Email*: [email protected] *Cell*: 503.866.4424 *Fax*: >> 503.296.5502 >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature database 3796 (20090124) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature database 3805 (20090127) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature database 3805 (20090127) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature database 3811 (20090129) __________ >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > http://www.sakimura.org/en/ > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
