I don't think the proposal goes against that, but as I said earlier think that
we're talking about enough interconnected pieces of the process that we should
address them together to be most effective. It sounds like we should work on
compiling a larger list of issues with the current process and maybe have a F2F
meeting trying to resolve as many as possible.
--David
----- "Mike Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
While this discussion has mostly been about “false positives”, I’m also
concerned about the “false negative” case, which is the main reason we
introduced the community vote for working group creation in the first place.
The current policy was explicitly designed so that the community could vote to
create a working group, even though the specs council didn’t recommend it. I
hope there’s no disagreement that the community should have the final say in
this case.
-- Mike
>
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:21 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Allen Tom's proposal on WG formation
On 02/28/2009 03:00 AM, Martin Atkins:
Mike Jones wrote:
>
>
The problem with this proposal is that it removes the community’s voice from
the spec creation process. Our members should always be given the option to
vote NOT TO create a working group as well as the option to vote TO create one.
Otherwise, a working group can be created by a very small group of insiders,
without the community serving as a check & balance.
>
> The current procedure, by design, always gives the community a voice, and the
> final say. I believe we got this principle right the first time.
> Your objection seems to consider that there are some disadvantages to the
> existance of a working group. Would you mind enumerating what you consider
> these to be?
>
> As far as I can tell, the existence of a working group is mostly harmless. It
> consumes some resources in the sense that it has a mailing list and it
> requires votes to be made, but that seems like minimal overhead.
>
> Could it be sufficient to simply vote on the final spec rather than on the
> creation of the working group in the first place? If the community doesn't
> like the result, it can veto the completed spec rather than the idea that
> drove that spec.
>
> In practice, I'd expect that a working group would get a general idea of
> whether it is popular or not during its working phase, so some working groups
> may "die out" due to lack of interest before they even get to the voting
> phase.
>
>
> I find Mike's proposal interesting. How can a spec at final approval be voted
> down, considering that the same mechanism is applied for approving a spec as
> well?
Regards
Signer:
Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd.
Jabber:
[email protected]
Blog:
Join the Revolution!
Phone:
+1.213.341.0390
> _______________________________________________ board mailing list
> [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
