Hi David,
Hmmm. So, you mean, that at OIDF, the editors are fully delegated the
responsibility to maintain the IPR integrity unlike OASIS etc. ? Since I
was having OASIS as a model where TC admins (== OASIS staffs) and the
infrastructure controls the access, and these processes are documented
in the IPR process, I had an impression that that should be the way, but
if OIDF takes this "Editor Controlled" model, I am fine with it. Perhaps
4.13 Intellectual Property. The WG will at all times comply with the
IPR Policy.
of the OpenID Process Document actually tacitly speaking of this "Editor
Control" Model?
=nat
(2009/12/28 15:43), David Recordon wrote:
Hey Nat,
The IPR process determines the process around contributions to a
working group's mailing list. It is up to the editor(s) to be
responsible in terms of requesting access to the specification's
repository. The Board should be overseeing that a good IPR policy is
in place and to provide infrastructure to working groups if it is missing.
The Board should have less control over these sorts of minute details,
not more. There are far more important things for the Board to spend
time on compared to whether a given working group uses Subversion,
Git, or Mercurial. If a working group's editor(s) can't make that
decision then they shouldn't be editors. :)
--David
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Well, the users are specs@ but the board has an oversight
responsibility to avoid IPR contamination.
Thus, where the repositories are, and how they are managed are of
interest and responsibility of the board.
As to the location of the WG repositories are concerned, if we are
allowed to use ones that the WG likes, we probably need to
establish a mechanism to
1) Board approval on the location and the management method of the
repository.
2) Advertise it to the internet (A link from WG main page should
be good enough.)
It should not be complicated, but the mechanism should be well
defined and documented.
=nat
(2009/12/28 15:04), David Recordon wrote:
Agreed with Will. (And this is an issue for specs@, not bo...@.)
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Will Norris <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm not sure that it needs to be either/or. We have the
'openid' account secured on github, bitbucket, and google
code. Let individual working groups use whichever version
control system they are most comfortable with. Of course the
final deliverables that come out of any working group should
be in common location (such as
http://openid.net/developers/specs/), but that doesn't
necessarily mean that they all need to use the same
technology to develop them.
-will
On Dec 26, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> David and Allen,
>
> I suppose we should ask the wider community, so I am
including board@
> in the distribution list.
>
> For those of you who are new to this topic, we have been
> "experimenting/trying a move to" github from svn. However,
after
> having used it for sometime, I have started to find some
problems with
> github and it now looks to me that bitbucket.org
<http://bitbucket.org> is a better option
> than github.
>
> The reasons are:
>
> 1. It uses OpenID for web interface login.
> 2. It allows the use of https logins through proxies so it
can be
> accessed through corporate firewalls etc. as well. (It is
extremely
> difficult to do this for github -- it can be done, but it
probably is
> beyond many people because you need to build a tunnel
through the
> proxy.)
> 3. It allows CNAMEs when paid US$5 a month, so that it could be
> accessed as openid.net <http://openid.net>., e.g.,
http://specs.openid.net/ax/ ->
> http://bitbucket.org/openid/ax/ This is kind of vanity
thing, but is
> important to establish the "authenticity" of the repository
to the
> public.
>
> For our use, I have secured account "openid" at bitbucket.
>
> What would you think?
>
> =nat
>
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Nat <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> One problem that I found about github is that it is very
difficult to
>> configure it to work with corporate proxies. We started to
use github for
>> translation project as well, but several members got stack
there. Do you
>> know of a work around?
>>
>> =...@tokyo via iPhone
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
--
Nat Sakimura ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>)
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
Tel:+81-3-6274-1412 Fax:+81-3-6274-1547
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
--
Nat Sakimura ([email protected])
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
Tel:+81-3-6274-1412 Fax:+81-3-6274-1547
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
