[OpenID board] Topic for this week's agenda

[Drummond Reed]

+1. Note that if each voter had one canonical email address associated with
their OpenID of record, email voting would meet these requirements for the
time being. 

=Drummond 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
> Of Nat Sakimura
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:04 AM
> To: board at openid.net
> Cc: david at sixapart.com
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Topic for this week's agenda
> 
> So, what is the requirement to the voting app?
> 
> I guess,
> 
> 1) OpenID Enabled.
> 2) One OpenID is allowed to vote only once.
> 
> are the minimum requirement. Perhaps:
> 
> 3) One can change the vote before the deadline.
> 
> is nice, too, but I am not sure if we really need it.
> 
> I do not think annonymous voting is needed for the time being.
> 
> =nat
> 
> Mike Jones wrote:
> > That's true, but those votes wouldn't qualify under the IPR policy and
> procedures for any of the significant decisions, such as starting a
> working group, approving drafts, etc.  They're also not good enough for
> electing board members.
> >
> > What are you proposing that these votes would be good enough for?
> >
> >                                 -- Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
> Behalf Of David Recordon
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:21 PM
> > To: board at openid.net
> > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Topic for this week's agenda
> >
> > The community can always just have a lightweight version of voting.
> > Someone makes a proposal, others +1 it, boom done.
> >
> > On Mar 10, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Drummond Reed wrote:
> >>
> >>> Scott and Bill:
> >>>
> >>> Per the thread below, the question of when we will be opening up
> >>> new Working
> >>> Groups for specifications is starting to come up. I'm not saying
> >>> there is a
> >>> compelling reason to do that yet for any spec other than PAPE (and
> >>> the
> >>> Trusted Exchange spec that Nat Sakimura and his team have
> >>> suggested), but I
> >>> do think that OIDF needs to take a public stance about:
> >>>
> >>> a) The status of current WGs (to my knowledge it's not published
> >>> anywhere
> >>> what WGs exist or are planned)
> >>>
> >>> b) The process for community members to form a WG.
> >>>
> >>> Can we put a short discussion about this on this week's agenda?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It was my understanding that the blocker for this is that we have no
> >> voting system through which we can hold a vote for the creation of a
> >> WG.
> >>
> >> Obviously that is in hand per our discussions at the last meeting.
> >> However, I guess we could discuss an interim plan to get the first few
> >> WGs up and running quickly. It'd be nice if these could be up and
> >> running by IIW so that the WGs can potentially present to the
> >> community
> >> what they've been up to.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> 
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
> XDI.ORG Vice Chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board