I do not think "take a look at the IPR Process in a holistic perspective" was a consensus. To me, taking "at least a month" before any concrete proposal would be too time consuming, since we have already lost a quarter. There is a board approved 4 changes with proposed text sitting there for a month, and to me, adding the 5th one, which is Allen's proposal, is adequate. (Note, this change was also incorporated in the current proposed text. A lawyer can review it in a day max.) David opposed to that idea, so it was made an action item among Don, David, and me to discuss and drive it.
That is the state of it. =nat On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:17 AM, David Recordon <[email protected]> wrote: > This was discussed briefly by the Board yesterday during our meeting and we > plan to take a look at the IPR Process in a holistic perspective, looking at > the changes that can be made to address how hard it is to get started. > > --David > > On Mar 19, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Martin Atkins wrote: > >> David Recordon wrote: >>> >>> Hey Brett, >>> There is a 14-day discussion period once the Specs Council has approved >>> the WG which occurs on the [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> mailing list. There was also a discussion on the same list leading up to >>> the Specs Council vote on the proposal. >>> I think everyone agrees that there are other user interface improvements >>> to be made, though pop-ups are a good starting point. I think we should >>> address this once the working group is created and see if there is consensus >>> there to rename the specification being produced. >> >> Once again I find myself wondering why there is a vote to create a working >> group. This is especially perplexing in this case where you seem to be >> suggesting that after the group is formed it might decide to change its >> scope. >> >> Why can't we just let working groups be created and do their work and then >> do the vote on the finished specification itself rather than on the plan to >> create one? >> >> All the current setup seems to achieve is that folks do most of the work >> in other forums like the "step2" mailing list where the OpenID community >> can't necessarily see it, and then they just go through the motions to >> create the working group after most of the work has already been done. This >> seems counter-productive. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
