I see the downside is that making any chage to the IPR docs is not
a normal
Membership vote as we've done in the past. Rather, any changes to
the IPR
Docs require a 21 day notice period, multiple electronic notices to
the
"legal" contacts provided on a myriad of paper and electronic forms
we've
collected, a blog post at the beginning of the 21 day period, the
ability
for a Member to denote a proxy voter (e.g. allow me to let Six
Apart's
lawyer login and vote under the Six Apart membership for this vote
only via
our software), and either a subermajority vote of 60% of our
Membership with
a majority of the Board or a supermajority of 30% of our Membership
with a
supermajority of the Board.
So, given that before we can hold this vote we need to (beyond
drafting the
notices and blog post):
1) Find all of the legal contacts that we've been provided over the
past
year and a half
2) Modify our voting software to allow a Member to denote a proxy
voter for
this one vote
This should all happen before the 21 day notice period because if
on the
22nd day we're not ready to vote, we'll have to issue a new notice
period
and start over again.
--David
On Feb 2, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Brian Kissel wrote:
David,
While the comprehensive approach might be compelling, wouldn't it
be better
to make incremental progress on the 4 motions that Nat has already
submitted
that have been approved by the board. The risk here is that we delay
straightforward changes by tying them with ones that are still being
developed. Shouldn't the members get to make an up-down vote on
independent
sets of changes independently, rather than having to wait for other
possible
changes. What is the downside to pursuing these sequentially?
Cheers,
Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
From: David Recordon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 1:50 PM
To: Brian Kissel
Cc: Nat Sakimura; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote
[email protected]
I think the immediate next step is having a lawyer involved (as
needed) to
make the appropriate changes to the IPR Process document before the
21 day
period can commence. As I said in a previous email, considering
how much
effort is designed into changing the IPR Policy or Process, I think
it is
worthwhile to do this once rather than multiple times this year.
The two
items which I know are currently being discussed which I would like
to see
rolled into this vote are:
1) Drastically shortening or removing the notification period of a
membership vote to create a new Working Group once the Specs
Council has
reccomended it.
2) Clarifying if a Working Group must produce an Implementor's
Draft before
a Final Draft given the IPR implications of not doing so.
3) Resolving and adding language to allow organizations like
MySpace AOL and
Plaxo - who have corporate parents - to contribute to Working Groups.
I would thus ask that the Board re-charter an IPR Committee to
resolve these
issues as expeditiously as possible thus resulting in *one*
membership vote
to ideally approve all of these changes versus a series of votes
over the
course of the year. All three of these additional items are
changes that
have been discussed and many have proposals on the table.
--David
----- "Brian Kissel" <[email protected]> wrote:
Guys, are we clear on next steps to move Nat's 4 proposals on for a
full
membership vote and are those activities underway? What is the ETA
for
being able to start the 21 day notification process?
Cheers,
Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
From: Brian Kissel
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:46 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote
Not following you David. I thought your recommendation was that
the exact
wording had to be done before beginning the 21 day notification, so
that was
what I was asking Nat to provide when ready. I'm also working with
Refresh
Media to see if we have an official mailing list for all members we
can use
per the email from Mike Jones below. I'm sure Nat would love to
work with
you for what goes on the OIDF homepage, Nat? Just trying to keep
this
process moving per section 3.4 and the dialog below.
Cheers,
Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
From: David Recordon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:39 AM
To: Brian Kissel
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
results are in
I take it that you're ignoring what I said and not even
acknowledging it
with a direct response?
As to emailing the members, we need to email legal contacts as well
if the
members provided them which I'm unsure how the membership tool
currently captures. We do however have legal contacts for many of
the
companies that signed contribution agreements for working groups
which the
ones I know of can be found
in http://openid.net/ipr/Non-Assertion-Agreement/executed/.
I'm also happy to help draft/edit this blog post given that it is
valuable
to tie into a larger narrative about how the IPR work we did has
since
influenced other communities in a major way.
--David
On Jan 30, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Brian Kissel wrote:
Nat, please let me know when you have the wording completed so we
can post
on the OIDF homepage and send out an email to all OIDF members for
the
notification period before the vote.
Cheers,
Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf
Of David Recordon
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 1:05 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
results are in
I believe that Mike was objecting to starting the 21 day clock
without
actual text changes in the document. I would advise that this work
be
delegated to the IPR Committee (if we even still have one) and for
them to
come back to the board once there is actual blessed text to review.
I still believe that given a 21 day review period coupled with the
high
degree of notifications and voting required to change the IPR
Policy and
Process that taking an extra few days to round up any other changes
is truly
the best path forward. We know this Process is broken as we've
tried to use
it a few times and we have groups like "Step2" creating new work
outside of
the OpenID Foundation because our Process is too complex and
difficult to
navigate. Let's fix that instead of trying to ignore the entire
set of
problems for expediency especially when the Specs Council is now
actually
starting to work again.
--David
On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Brian Kissel wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I only meant to start the 21 day clock for
the 4
spec process improvement motions that Nat made that have already been
approved by the board. The exact wording for those motions are the
same as
they word for the board votes.
Cheers,
Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf
Of Mike Jones
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
results are in
Yes, I am opposed. The notification must include the precise
proposed text
changes to the IPR documents, preferably as tracked changes to the
approved
originals, so the lawyers know exactly what changes are being
considered to
our IPR policy and process. Until those precise changes are
drafted and
available, we can not start the 21-day legal review process.
--
Mike
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf
Of Brian Kissel
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
results are in
Given that we need a 21 day notification for a membership vote, I'd
suggest
we start that official notification now. Anyone opposed to that?
Nat, can you create the posting for the home page of the OIDF
website, which
is also required?
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 29, 2009 3:58 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
results are in
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]] 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]] 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]'
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
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/
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 3811 (20090129) __________
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
__________ 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
