[OpenID board] Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote
Brian Kissel
bkissel at janrain.com
Mon Feb 2 17:00:04 UTC 2009
David,
While the comprehensive approach might be compelling, wouldn't it be better to make incremental progress on the 4 motions that Nat has already submitted that have been approved by the board. The risk here is that we delay straightforward changes by tying them with ones that are still being developed. Shouldn't the members get to make an up-down vote on independent sets of changes independently, rather than having to wait for other possible changes. What is the downside to pursuing these sequentially?
Cheers,
Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
From: David Recordon [mailto:david at sixapart.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 1:50 PM
To: Brian Kissel
Cc: Nat Sakimura; board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
Subject: Re: Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote
+board at openid.net<mailto:+board at openid.net>
I think the immediate next step is having a lawyer involved (as needed) to make the appropriate changes to the IPR Process document before the 21 day period can commence. As I said in a previous email, considering how much effort is designed into changing the IPR Policy or Process, I think it is worthwhile to do this once rather than multiple times this year. The two items which I know are currently being discussed which I would like to see rolled into this vote are:
1) Drastically shortening or removing the notification period of a membership vote to create a new Working Group once the Specs Council has reccomended it.
2) Clarifying if a Working Group must produce an Implementor's Draft before a Final Draft given the IPR implications of not doing so.
3) Resolving and adding language to allow organizations like MySpace AOL and Plaxo - who have corporate parents - to contribute to Working Groups.
I would thus ask that the Board re-charter an IPR Committee to resolve these issues as expeditiously as possible thus resulting in *one* membership vote to ideally approve all of these changes versus a series of votes over the course of the year. All three of these additional items are changes that have been discussed and many have proposals on the table.
--David
----- "Brian Kissel" <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:
>
>
Guys, are we clear on next steps to move Nat's 4 proposals on for a full membership vote and are those activities underway? What is the ETA for being able to start the 21 day notification process?
Cheers,
> Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
>
From: Brian Kissel
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:46 AM
> To: 'david at sixapart.com'
> Cc: board at openid.net
> Subject: Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote
Not following you David. I thought your recommendation was that the exact wording had to be done before beginning the 21 day notification, so that was what I was asking Nat to provide when ready. I'm also working with Refresh Media to see if we have an official mailing list for all members we can use per the email from Mike Jones below. I'm sure Nat would love to work with you for what goes on the OIDF homepage, Nat? Just trying to keep this process moving per section 3.4 and the dialog below.
Cheers,
> Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
>
From: David Recordon [mailto:david at sixapart.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:39 AM
> To: Brian Kissel
> Cc: board at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - results are in
I take it that you're ignoring what I said and not even acknowledging it with a direct response?
As to emailing the members, we need to email legal contacts as well if the members provided them which I'm unsure how the membership tool currently captures. We do however have legal contacts for many of the companies that signed contribution agreements for working groups which the ones I know of can be found in http://openid.net/ipr/Non-Assertion-Agreement/executed/.
I'm also happy to help draft/edit this blog post given that it is valuable to tie into a larger narrative about how the IPR work we did has since influenced other communities in a major way.
--David
On Jan 30, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Brian Kissel wrote:
Nat, please let me know when you have the wording completed so we can post on the OIDF homepage and send out an email to all OIDF members for the notification period before the vote.
Cheers,
> Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
>
From: board-bounces at openid.net<mailto:board-bounces at openid.net> [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of David Recordon
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 1:05 AM
> To: board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - results are in
I believe that Mike was objecting to starting the 21 day clock without actual text changes in the document. I would advise that this work be delegated to the IPR Committee (if we even still have one) and for them to come back to the board once there is actual blessed text to review.
I still believe that given a 21 day review period coupled with the high degree of notifications and voting required to change the IPR Policy and Process that taking an extra few days to round up any other changes is truly the best path forward. We know this Process is broken as we've tried to use it a few times and we have groups like "Step2" creating new work outside of the OpenID Foundation because our Process is too complex and difficult to navigate. Let's fix that instead of trying to ignore the entire set of problems for expediency especially when the Specs Council is now actually starting to work again.
--David
On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Brian Kissel wrote:
>
>
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I only meant to start the 21 day clock for the 4 spec process improvement motions that Nat made that have already been approved by the board. The exact wording for those motions are the same as they word for the board votes.
Cheers,
> Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
>
From: board-bounces at openid.net<mailto:board-bounces at openid.net> [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:02 PM
> To: board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - results are in
Yes, I am opposed. The notification must include the precise proposed text changes to the IPR documents, preferably as tracked changes to the approved originals, so the lawyers know exactly what changes are being considered to our IPR policy and process. Until those precise changes are drafted and available, we can not start the 21-day legal review process.
-- Mike
>
From: board-bounces at openid.net<mailto:board-bounces at openid.net> [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Brian Kissel
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:15 PM
> To: board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - results are in
Given that we need a 21 day notification for a membership vote, I'd suggest we start that official notification now. Anyone opposed to that?
Nat, can you create the posting for the home page of the OIDF website, which is also required?
Cheers,
> Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
>
From: board-bounces at openid.net<mailto:board-bounces at openid.net> [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:58 PM
> To: david at sixapart.com<mailto:david at sixapart.com>; board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - results are in
Hmmm. While this option sounds attractive, we might want to take two phased approach.
> I have just made motions for the urgent things. If we start requirement gathering at this stage, it will delay these changes.
>
> So, my proposal is to do what the board vote approved in parallel to the longer term ammendment with requirement gatherings. (BTW, there are bunch of things that I want to list under this mid-term project.)
>
> I will draft the ammendment to the Process document this weekend.
>
> One of the motion is unrelated to the Process document, but to assign the committee liaison the power to take an initiative to facilitate and advance the specs process. i.e., David is now officially empowered to chase down the specs council members as well as to help out the proposers so that the process goes as quick as it can.
>
> I have not seen much progress on OpenID+OAuth hybrid and CX specs council process. I hope this will improve the situation.
>
> =nat
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:10 AM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com<mailto:david at sixapart.com>> wrote:
Given that there are some other things we'd like to amend to the IPR Process, should we try to capture the entire list of changes we wish to make so we only need to do this once?
On Jan 29, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Brian Kissel wrote:
OK thanks Mike. Do we have a "members" email address to start the membership notification period?
Cheers,
> Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
>
From: board-bounces at openid.net<mailto:board-bounces at openid.net> [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:55 AM
> To: board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - results are in
We can not amend the process doc without a membership vote, and the following criteria being met, as per section 3.4 of the process:
* 21 day notice period
* Multiple electronic notice required (if the OIDF member has provided multiple addresses), including to a "legal contact," if provided
* Prominent posting (at least 21 days in advance of the beginning of the voting period) on homepage of OIDF website
* 7 day voting period after end of notice period (if vote is not taken at a properly-noticed meeting)
* OIDF members may designate a proxy from the member's registered OpenID identifier specifying the designated proxy's OpenID identifier
* Any approved change is prospective only
* Approval of a change requires either of the following:
Approval Option 1
o Quorum of greater of 60% of OIDF membership or 30 OIDF members (no bypass option) and
o Supermajority vote of those constituting a quorum, plus a majority concurrence by the OIDF Board
Approval Option 2
o Quorum of greater of 30% of OIDF membership or 30 OIDF members (no bypass option) and
o Majority vote of those constituting a quorum, plus a supermajority concurrence by the entire OIDF Board (where "absents" and "abstains" count as "no" votes)
Any change to the IPR Policy or Processes will not be effective until 21 days after approval, during which time then-current Contributors may withdraw in accordance with the IPR Policy or Processes as they existed prior to the change
Nat could produce an updated draft of the doc (which should have tracked changes on relative to the approved version) for legal membership review prior to the vote, but none of this can go into effect until the membership vote has occurred and met the criteria above.
-- Mike
>
From: board-bounces at openid.net<mailto:board-bounces at openid.net> [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Brian Kissel
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:29 PM
> To: board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - results are in
Thanks to everyone for your timely voting. While the polls are still open, all 4 of the motions made by Nat have passed. Nat can you take care of modifying the OpenID process document?
Cheers,
> Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
>
From: Brian Kissel
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:24 PM
> To: 'board at openid.net<mailto:%27board at openid.net>'
> Subject: RE: 4 spec process improvement board votes - please go to the website and vote
Hello All, just a reminder to go to the website and vote on these 4 motions. To date we only have 5 votes and we need 7 for a majority decision.
Cheers,
> Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
>
From: Brian Kissel
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 1:16 PM
> To: board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
> Subject: 4 spec process improvement board votes
Hello OIDF board members,
The four spec process improvement motions made by Nat Sakimura and seconded by Brian Kissel have now completed the seven day notification and discussion period. Each motion is now available for board voting on the OIDF polling tool. A simple majority vote by 7 or more board members is required for approval on each motion. The vote ends on January 31st, 2009.
Regards,
> Brian
___________
Brian Kissel<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>
CEO, JanRain - OpenID-enable your websites, customers, partners, and employees
5331 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 375, Portland, OR 97239
Email: bkissel at janrain.com<mailto:bkissel at janrain.com> Cell: 503.866.4424 Fax: 503.296.5502
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3796 (20090124) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3805 (20090127) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3805 (20090127) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net<mailto: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/20090202/18f3ccc1/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the board
mailing list