[OpenID board] Fwd: [OpenID Foundation] New Poll Opened

Wed Apr 1 21:14:00 UTC 2009

+1

On Mar 19, 2009, at 9:53 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:

> My hope is for an IPR policy and process that does the following two  
> things:
>
>   1) Produces "clean" intellectual property (i.e., specs that have  
> been non-asserted by the contributors, copyright license applied, etc)
>   2) Ensures appropriate use of the OpenID trademark
>
> Neither of these two goals strictly require the pre-determined- 
> scope / working group model we follow today.
>
> On the contrary, by placing the burden up front all we've done is  
> politicize technical work before it is even officially begins (or  
> worse, stalling it so long that it never begins).  Specifications  
> aren't evaluated on technical merit after looking at a full draft;  
> they're judged before the ideas are even partially explored.  Worse  
> this gives the appearance of an ownership over OpenID that I'm  
> almost certain was never intended by the original inventors of the  
> technology and supporters of the foundation.
>
> As an alternative, I'd like to see us move to a much simpler and  
> more meritocratic model that says:
>
>    1) Anyone, member of the OIDF or not, can start working on an  
> OpenID specification, but they must do so only under a provisional  
> brand ("OpenID Experimental", or something)
>    2) In order for the specification to graduate and earn the  
> official "OpenID" trademark the completed specification must be:
>       2a) Ratified by membership vote
>       2b) Non-asserted and copyright-licensed in accordance with  
> OIDF IPR policy
>
> Of course, the OIDF can offer tools and processes, such as an up- 
> front contributor license agreement and specification editorial  
> guidelines, to assist communities in successfully bringing a  
> specification to graduation.  But beyond enforcing trademark and  
> ensuring IP cleanliness, I'm not sure we want the OIDF board to  
> assert more authority over the direction of the technology than that.
>
> -DeWitt
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com>  
> wrote:
> I also recollect that Nat's summary below is what was discussed and  
> decided.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
> ==============
> Brian Kissel
> Cell: 503.866.4424
> Fax: 503.296.5502
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On  
> Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 6:00 PM
> To: david at sixapart.com; board at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Fwd: [OpenID Foundation] New Poll Opened
>
> I do not think "take a look at the IPR Process in a holistic
> perspective" was a consensus. To me, taking "at least a month" before
> any concrete proposal would be too time consuming, since we have
> already lost a quarter. There is a board approved 4 changes with
> proposed text sitting there for a month, and to me, adding the 5th
> one, which is Allen's proposal, is adequate. (Note, this change was
> also incorporated in the current proposed text. A lawyer can review it
> in a day max.) David opposed to that idea, so it was made an action
> item among Don, David, and me to discuss and drive it.
>
> That is the state of it.
>
> =nat
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:17 AM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com>  
> wrote:
> > This was discussed briefly by the Board yesterday during our  
> meeting and we
> > plan to take a look at the IPR Process in a holistic perspective,  
> looking at
> > the changes that can be made to address how hard it is to get  
> started.
> >
> > --David
> >
> > On Mar 19, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Martin Atkins wrote:
> >
> >> David Recordon wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey Brett,
> >>> There is a 14-day discussion period once the Specs Council has  
> approved
> >>> the WG which occurs on the specs at openid.net <mailto:specs at openid.net 
> >
> >>> mailing list.  There was also a discussion on the same list  
> leading up to
> >>> the Specs Council vote on the proposal.
> >>> I think everyone agrees that there are other user interface  
> improvements
> >>> to be made, though pop-ups are a good starting point.  I think  
> we should
> >>> address this once the working group is created and see if there  
> is consensus
> >>> there to rename the specification being produced.
> >>
> >> Once again I find myself wondering why there is a vote to create  
> a working
> >> group. This is especially perplexing in this case where you seem  
> to be
> >> suggesting that after the group is formed it might decide to  
> change its
> >> scope.
> >>
> >> Why can't we just let working groups be created and do their work  
> and then
> >> do the vote on the finished specification itself rather than on  
> the plan to
> >> create one?
> >>
> >> All the current setup seems to achieve is that folks do most of  
> the work
> >> in other forums like the "step2" mailing list where the OpenID  
> community
> >> can't necessarily see it, and then they just go through the  
> motions to
> >> create the working group after most of the work has already been  
> done. This
> >> seems counter-productive.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus  
> signature database 3949 (20090319) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus  
> signature database 3950 (20090320) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus  
> signature database 3950 (20090320) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20090401/13288441/attachment-0002.htm>