For context for those of you that were not on the thread, what is being
proposed is an hourly contract - not a fee for deliverables contract. While
some committee members expressed a wish for specific milestones and time
estimates, others felt that this was not reasonable or possible, given that
Dick's involvement is meant to supplement - not replace - community
participation, and that progress will still be highly dependent upon the degree
of community involvement (as indeed, we want it to be!).
There were several changes made to the original statement of work based upon
input from the technology committee where there was clear committee consensus.
In contrast, milestones were not added because of the reasons stated above and
because there was not a consensus within the technology committee that they
were possible or reasonable.
For transparency, I wrote back to Don's request saying "I agree that this SOW
incorporates the consensus feedback of the technology committee." It does not
incorporate some feedback for which there was not committee consensus. Without
consensus on particular points, it's reasonable to proceed to develop a
contract which the full board will soon get to evaluate.
Also for context, the resolution that you voted for David, was "to have the
executive director and counsel produce term sheet by the end of May for up to
$30,000 with input from the technical committee". As I see it, the committee
did give its input, resulting in several specific changes to the SOW. The
committee did its job in this process. The technology committee was never a
blocking reviewer, and the fact that there were some differences of opinion
within the committee on one point does not block the ED and council from
proceeding to carry out the board's wishes (which you also voted for).
Finally, I'll point out that in an hourly contract, the check-and-balance is
that either party can terminate the contract without cause at any point.
Instead of having specific milestones up front, instead, the board is free to
terminate the contract if we're not satisfied with the actual progress. This
is a normal kind of consulting contract.
I'm sorry that you've chosen to resign because I value your perspectives. I
hope that you reconsider.
-- Mike
From: David Recordon [mailto:record...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:37 PM
To: Don Thibeau (OIDF ED); openid-board@lists.openid.net
Cc: tech-c...@openid.net; scott.da...@klgates.com
Subject: Re: v.Next SOW
(Adding the Board mailing list and trimming the non-public emails out of
courtesy. This thread was a revised statement of work from Dick, Don asking if
it represented a consensus view of the Technology Committee, and one of the
Committee members replying that it did.)
While a lot of the feedback from the Technology Committee and Brian Kissel was
incorporated into this statement of work, only two members of the committee
replied affirmatively in regards to the revisions. I re-asked some of the
original questions (which Dick replied to) and the remaining three members of
the Committee have not replied. It's possible that silence is being interpreted
as consensus.
I personally have a hard time fully evaluating this statement of work without
understanding the timeline around the deliverables and overall cost. To help
get us closer to consensus I've decided to resign as Vice Chair of the
Technology Committee.
--David
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
bo...@lists.openid.net
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
