[OpenID board] Fwd: OpenID Bylaws -> Operational and membership model ...

Dick Hardt dick at sxip.com
Thu Mar 8 07:11:06 UTC 2007

On 7-Mar-07, at 2:32 PM, Bill Washburn wrote:

> Dick,
> Here are just a couple of comments now, since I try to stay in a  
> facilitator mode during our calls...

Thanks Bill!  good comments, some additional commentary inserted ...

> Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > Operations:
> > ----------------
> >     hold IP
> >     protect IP
> >     hosting
> >     coordinate marketing
> >
> > Q: How much effort is needed for marketing?
> > Q: Is there a long term need for marketing?
> I'd say, this is where the term "marketing" may be inadequate  
> conceptually as a rubric for what the OIDF is poised to do and what  
> the broader community expects of OIDF.  Beyond all the classic  
> marketing activities, I think OIDF can/could/should:
> * help, encourage, and support "intra-community" communications;
> * serve as an OpenID community focal point and forum to--
>     - help ensure reasonable levels of concrete coordination,  
> cooperation, and teamwork within the community;
>     - provide education and like support to the emergent community  
> of new participants;
> * support grassroots community development work to help with  
> expanding, integrating, and alignment of the growing population of  
> OpenID community participants;
> * help the OpenID community as is deemed appropriate with basic  
> public relations;
> * support outreach coordination, facilitation, and/or activism to  
> help contribute to the continued development of momentum in  
> building the viral, or word of mouth awareness of OpenID and it's  
> value.

While I think it is good to break these out -- there is the slippery  
slope of starting to get specific on what activities will need to be  
done. My purpose for including this such. The membership model will  
dictate funding options, therefore funding requirements are needed in  
determining membership model. What the organization is going to do is  
needed to know to determine funding.

In the last call we had general consensus that a $100K- $500K budget  
was what was needed. I think that is what we need to move forward on  
determining membership model which is needed for bylaws.

> > Q: What will OIDF do if someone abuses the trademark? Will it  
> file an
> > injunction? How will it fund the legal activities?
> I would say this question holds the implication that OIDF is and  
> should be the designated steward or caretaker for the OpenID  
> community of it's IP.  Therefore, when the community voices  
> concerns that the IP is being harmed, abused, etc., then, if we  
> have formed OIDF well, we will have the clarity of policies and  
> procedures in place necessary to protect the IP in a fashion  
> embraced by the majority of the community's members.
> It would seem apparent to me there will necessarily be a tight  
> linkage between the community's explicit concerns with abuse of IP  
> and the community's willingness and capability to seek protection  
> of its IPR.  IMO, this will have to be a policy regime that is  
> developed with wisdom and wide cooperation that enjoys broad  
> support and agreement in the community generally as well as within  
> >
> > Budget:
> > -----------
> > (short term and long term)
> > Q: Are there some activities that are one off and some that are on-
> > going?
> Yes.  That's a given in most any organization, I'd say.
>  Does a capitalization and maintenance funding model make
> > sense?
> Could this question be restated please?  Is this asking about going  
> into debt?

Do we need a larger amount of money to set things up and then much  
less money on an annual basis to operate later on. Could be done with  
debt, but was not what I was thinking of. I was thinking that we  
would need to raise a bunch of money to kick things off, but would  
not need to raise that money again.

> Would an initial large fund raising activity followed by some
> > activity that provides a maintenance income stream work?
> Maybe!
> If the question was: Would a *successful* initial large fund  
> raising activity work? followed by that provided an on-going,  
> maintenance income stream, then surely the answer would be a clear  
> YES.
> IMO, the challenge of this effort is to pull together *enough*  
> early financial support that the momentum of the OpenID initiative  
> can relatively quickly sustain a momentum building effort that  
> achieves a critical mass of things like:
>     - actual adoption and use;
>     - statements of real interest, curiosity, call-to-action,  
> support and belief in the value and worth of OpenID by influencers,  
> reporters, website operators;
>     - word of mouth type viral activity amongst early adopting end- 
> users and communities.

Enough support will be needed to get it over the top.

> > Q: Does a conference work for ongoing income stream? Funded by
> > attendees and sponsors ala Apache and IETF funding?
> You may all know better than I, but I believe a conference revenue  
> stream is NOT a significant source of income at this very nascent  
> stage, i.e., right away in the next 3-6 months.  At least not  
> unless we expend an extreme amount of time and energy to make it  
> enormously attractive, appealing, and worthwhile to a wide array of  
> people.  But maybe this is where you know things about how to make  
> it a compelling, must attend thing.

> Beyond six months, say november of 2007 or thereafter, perhaps it  
> could be a smart thing to do.  But we'd have to make a lot happen  
> in the mean time and it would entail rather considerable prep work,  
> in my experience.

I was thinking of a conference revenue stream being significant two  
years out, but could be sooner. Conferences take time before they can  
generate good revenue as sponsors want to see a track record.

> >
> > Membership:
> > ------------------
> > a) Individuals
> > b) Vendors
> > c) Individuals and Vendors
> > d) none
> Yes to c ... and I'd add other categories such as commercial  
> website operators, online communities, various technology  
> organizations, "end-user" type interest groups, stakeholders in the  
> larger Internet/web/online ecology, governmental agencies at state  
> and federal levels at least and some international organizations as  
> well.

Perhaps instead of vendors I should state organizations?

There are either individuals or organizations or both.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20070307/4624fab4/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the board mailing list