[OpenID board] The Specs Council and Process (WAS: Re: Executive Committee meeting 12/18/2008 ...)

David Recordon drecordon at sixapart.com
Wed Dec 17 22:29:41 UTC 2008


Or ideally the group would emerge with a draft of a spec along with  
some form of consensus around it and thus be easier to write and have  
a better informed scope statement.

If we were to do this, what would it look like?

1) Some group of people decide they want to tackle a problem.  They  
email the specs@ mailing list with some sort of description of what  
they want to do and we set them up with a mailing list like drafting- 
<name>@openid.net.  (I'd also have no problem in using Google Groups  
for these since it's less maintenance and makes it easier for those  
leading the work to manage.)
2) Group is created and it tries to stay away from calling their  
document "OpenID <foo>" for the time being.
3) To post to the list, you must agree to the existing IPR policy so  
everything around withdrawal and review periods of later stage drafts  
remain the same.
4) At some point, one or more drafts in, the group decides to  
formalize their WG.
5) They write a charter/scope to submit along with their draft and an  
accurate list of authors/contributors.
6) Specs Council / membership approves their WG or decides that the  
draft they've produced really doesn't fit into OpenID and works with  
the group on either how to change that (e.g. more reuse) or helps them  
move to another organization to finish their work.
7) They use the rest of the process to publish an Implementor's Draft  
and then in the end a Final Draft.

This thus makes it much easier to get started and far more concrete  
when the specs council is looking to recommend if work becomes a  
working group or not.

It doesn't fix the 4 months to finalize a spec, but I guess we tackle  
that problem as groups start to hit it.  (Which PAPE is already  
starting to.)

--David

On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:

> Sounds like a lighter way of getting a WG started is what is needed so
> that people can get together to discuss the problem without having to
> write up a scope document -- since the scope often shifts as people
> get together and talk about it.
>
> So how about we add an earlier stage to the WG -- the formation stage
> -- at the end of that stage there may or may not be a scope that has  
> been created. If there is a scope document, it is put up for approval
> per the current process. Once approved, the WG is in the specification
> stage.
>
> -- Dick
>
> On 17-Dec-08, at 12:23 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>
>> Well, it doesn't go all the way to the book-end approach we're
>> taking with OWF. This is just a slight simplification of the current
>> process.
>>
>> The OIDF requires upfront scope approved by the foundation to create
>> a WG. The approval process is taking too long and meanwhile, people
>> are writing specs elsewhere. Those specs are in IPR limbo and needs
>> cleanup if they to eventually enter a WG or have a different IPR
>> policy attached.
>>
>> So my suggestion is simple. Follow the same IPR policy as you have
>> today for pre-WG work, meaning, write a clear scope and have some
>> form of discussion among those interested in participation. Create a
>> mailing list (or designate an existing one) for that work, and apply
>> the IPR policy *as-if* this is an official WG. Once the WG is ready
>> to publish its first draft, that draft + scope (with possible
>> changes) is submitted for an actual WG creation.
>>
>> If a WG is created, the work continues and the IPR license is
>> already in place. If the WG is not created, the parties involved can
>> continue as they choose.
>>
>> All I am really suggesting is to move the WG approval to after the
>> first draft, but other than that, keep everything else the same.
>>
>> EHL
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
>>> Behalf Of David Recordon
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:52 AM
>>> To: board at openid.net
>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] The Specs Council and Process (WAS: Re:
>>> Executive Committee meeting 12/18/2008 ...)
>>>
>>> Yeah, I don't think IPR per se is the roadblock, but the process  
>>> that
>>> we've created chosen to ensure that IPR isn't an issue is.  Mart is
>>> however correct that most of the current working group proposals are
>>> more or less taking a spec draft that is already written, turning it
>>> into a WG, and then having the non-asserts happen at the end
>>> implicitly with the review periods by the WG members versus
>>> explicitly
>>> as was done by OpenID 2.0 and OAuth 1.0.
>>>
>>> So, I think that Mart, Eran, and Dick are all correct in what  
>>> they've
>>> said in this thread.
>>>
>>> Eran, I'm intrigued by your pre-WG idea.  How would you see it
>>> actually work?  Sounds a bit like what we've been talking about for
>>> the Open Web Foundation.
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>> On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17-Dec-08, at 11:28 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>>>>> I take it you didn't have to personally "figure out the IPR
>>>>>> afterwards"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's actually my point. There are lots of folks for whom the IPR
>>>>> stuff
>>>>> isn't a concern for one reason or another. Those folks shouldn't  
>>>>> be
>>>>> prevented from getting on with stuff while those who *do* care
>>>>> about
>>>>> IPR
>>>>> are figuring it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's exactly what happened with OpenID 2.0. Lots of folks had it
>>>>> implemented long before the IPR was done.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I author a spec then I'm quite happy to sign an IPR non-assert
>>>>> where
>>>>> necessary, but the current process is far heavier than that and
>>> isn't
>>>>> really helping anyone because folks are just writing and
>>> implementing
>>>>> specs outside of the IPR framework because the IPR framework stops
>>>>> them
>>>>> actually getting any work done.
>>>>
>>>> It is MUCH more effort to figure out the IPR afterwards.
>>>>
>>>> IPR is NOT the roadblock in creating WGs. As David mentions, the
>>>> process is currently far to heavy. We need to make it simpler and
>>>> easily understood.
>>>>
>>>> -- Dick
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> board mailing list
>>>> board at openid.net
>>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board





More information about the board mailing list