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

[David Recordon]

Inline...

On Dec 17, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:

> > The challenge for some people will be that they do not want what
> > they consider unrelated IPR to be brought into a WG -- and since the
> > scope is not really defined, they need to be able to opt out after
> > scope is defined. I forget if that is in the IPR statements now.
>
> I'd think these people wouldn't participate in this earlier work if
> they're uncomfortable doing so without a scope, though also reading
> the IPR Policy the withdrawal provision might already be enough to
> work.  Basically, as long as these groups don't publish Implementor
> Drafts or a Final Specification, then contributors are allowed to
> withdraw given seven days written notice, would not have any
> obligations around patents, and would remain subject to the copyrights
> section.
>
> But of course, if that happens, the WG must identify what IPR  
> infringement they were making.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the WG is infringing any IP.  It  
should probably however be noted somewhere a list of who has withdrawn.


> >> 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.
> >
> > currently we require a membership vote to approve a WG do we not?
>
> Yes, oversight not including that versus explicitly looking to not
> include the step.  That said, shortening the ~30 days here would be
> nice.  I also wonder if the membership vote is actually effective
> given how it is currently designed with quorum and a simple majority.
>
> It is ineffective and not needed, I think.
> It is better to check afterwards than before.
> Right now, we have three check points: 1. Implementor's draft, 2.  
> Final spec., 3. Market adoption.
> That should be enough. To me, 3. is the most important one.

Yes, market adoption is the most important.  That said, blindly trying  
to get market adoption by using the OpenID brand isn't a good thing. :)


> >> 7) They use the rest of the process to publish an Implementor's  
> Draft
> >> and then in the end a Final Draft.
> >
> > and then a vote by the membership
>
> Yes, I don't propose changing the process for publishing Implementors
> Drafts or the Final Specification at this time.  As far as I can tell,
> this is:
>
> Implementors Draft:
>  - WG comes to consensus to publish an Implementors Draft
>  - 45 day IPR review period starts aimed at contributors
>  - The OIDF board has 30 days (within the 45) to make sure the
> Implementors Draft won't "create untenable legal liability for OIDF or
> the Board" and that it is not outside of the WG's scope.
>  - (It seems there is also written in a membership vote here, though
> it doesn't make sense and I'm guessing is an extra copy/paste.)
>
> Final Specification:
>  - WG comes to consensus to publish the Final Specification after at
> least one Implementors Draft
>  - 60 day IPR review period starts aimed at contributors
>  - The OIDF board has 30 days (within the 45) to make sure the
> Implementors Draft won't "create untenable legal liability for OIDF or
> the Board" and that it is not outside of the WG's scope.
>  - 14 day notice period of an OIDF member vote to approve the Final
> Specification
>
> As to these votings are concerned, would individual members count too?

Yes, these are for all OIDF members.

> I think it is a good move to try to get more non-tech normal people  
> start joining the foundaiton, but at the same time, having them  
> involved in the voting of this sort is kind of hard...

Agreed.  I'd wager that most don't care.

>
>
>
> -- 
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20081217/58717cd3/attachment-0002.htm>