[OpenID board] pay-to-play an issue?

Recordon, David drecordon at verisign.com
Thu Apr 5 16:43:44 UTC 2007


Yes, I think Scott hit the nail on the head.  If the Foundation is
purely a marketing organization then I see no problems with any sort of
pay-to-play type model.  If it manages anything community related
(domains, trademark, IP) then I unequivocally feel any sort of
pay-to-play model is the incorrect choice.

I think the question before us is if we can balance these two functions.
Could the organization at the top be around the community and thus a
merit based governing model and then have a working group around
marketing with its own chair and council which is based partially upon
who has contributed what?  Another model would be having some sort of
financial oversight committee made up of those that donated to the
Foundation.

--David 

-----Original Message-----
From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
Behalf Of Scott Kveton
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 9:21 AM
To: board at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] pay-to-play an issue?

> I was reflecting on David's comments about having board membership 
> having  a pay-to-play aspect.

Having just mentioned this in my last note, I'll follow-up as well.
 
> If the Foundation controlled the specifications, I would be very 
> aligned with David on NOT having it pay to play -- but given the 
> charter of protecting IP and marketing -- essentially those paying are

> those that have chosen to pool their marketing dollars, and coordinate

> their efforts -- so it makes sense for those people to participate in 
> how those dollars are spent -- so it is a pay-to- market issue.
> 
> With Apache, there is a clear marketing advantage to being listed with

> Apache given their history and they essentially are selling pay- 
> to-market with a clear path on how marketing is done, and it is for 
> exposure of the company to the Apache community. Apache does not need 
> to do much marketing themselves these days -- where as OpenID does 
> need to get some clear messages out there, and so a pay-to-market 
> model for people to come on board makes tons of sense to me -- and 
> clearly is the model some people are looking for given some 
> conversations with some of the players.

This is the core issue IMHO; is the OpenID Foundation a marketing group
or an organization for managing the mechanics of the OpenID community
(namely IP, trademarks, etc)?  Or both?  In a perfect world, I'd love to
have the OpenID Foundation do lots of things, however, we've got to get
some key things done _now_.  We can always add marketing efforts later.

As for how Apache does this, I would say that they are very clear that
when you "sponsor" Apache you get nothing in return that drives
direction of the organization.  You get your name on a sponsors page and
that's about it.
They are vehement about that (which I think is part of the reason for
their
success) as it makes it clear to the community and everyone involved the
roll of companies with Apache.

Looking forward to more discussion on the call today,

- Scott

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board at openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board



More information about the board mailing list