On 2010-10-31, at 10:39 AM, David Recordon wrote: On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote:
Dictating Technical Direction: Per the OIDF website: "The OIDF does not dictate the technical direction of OpenID; instead it will help enable and protect whatever is created by the community." Resolutions 2,5,6 and 7.3 (mislabeled as 5.3) all are technical directions, which is inappropriate for the OIDF. While I certainly pushed for establishing the organization in such a way where the Board isn't influencing the technology, the Foundation clearly isn't operating as we'd all like to see it. I believe a large pieces of this is a lack of shared direction which is the responsibility of the Board to establish. Then we should resolve how the Foundation operates. I don't see how resolutions stating technical direction are going to change the Foundations operations. Please elaborate if I am missing the connection. To your point of lack of shared direction, I agree, which is why I asked for a time slot at the board meeting to lead a discussion on this topic. That is how I hope to play an active role in addressing how the Foundation operates. As for the specific details of resolutions 2, 5, 5, and 7.3 I see them as following what is happening from the little technical activity within the Foundation and surrounding organizations. To me, these resolutions solely recognize what is already happening and become a clear statement of "yes, that's what the Foundation should be focused on" rather than setting a new direction. Is there a proposal for a new direction? I don't recall seeing one. The purpose of the Foundation is contained in the bylaws: Section 2.2 Specific Purposes. The specific purposes of the corporation include the following: (a) To foster and promote the development of, public access to, and adoption of OpenID as a framework for user-centric identity on the Internet; and (b) To acquire, create, hold, and manage intellectual property related to OpenID and provide equal access to such intellectual property to the OpenID community and public at no charge. Committee Empowerment: I am uncomfortable with 12 & 13 as they: are board motions or actions that are in scope for existing committees: provide broad powers for a committee to do specific actions with no fiscal accountability. We have already created committees for doing these actions and empowered them to decide what was needed to be done. By having this be a board level decision, we are undermining these committees. The board's responsibility would be to approve the budget for each of these committees, which likely would include these activities. Similar to the previous resolutions, the only committee currently executing is the Executive Committee. It's reasonable for the Board at this point to pick up pieces which the Technology Committee has not followed through on. Same goes for 13.1, 13.2, and 13.3 for the Adoption Committee. Then the appropriate action would be to address the issues with the committees by either energizing them or disbanding them. Micromanaging the committees demotivates them further. Having a board motion for the committee to do something does nor resolve the issues of the committees executing. Another option would be for *you* to participate as a member of those committees.
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
