Honestly, it's some hybrid based on what needs doing and who is able to do it. We're no where near the staff of OASIS. In any model, the editors of a working group should know who is contributing and make sure that they have contribution agreements before giving direct commit access. :)
--David On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]>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]> 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 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., 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]> 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] >>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing >> [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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing > [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 > >
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
