[OpenID board] Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Wed Feb 4 04:43:08 UTC 2009


Thinking about it, I'd rather that if we're making several sets of unrelated changes to the IPR documents, that the members get to vote on them independently, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it big ball of changes.  As such, I'd advocate Nat producing a change-tracked Word doc from the current process docs that can be voted on separately from other, less fully baked, changes that may come in the future.

                                -- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Chris Messina
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:38 PM
To: david at sixapart.com; board at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote

Grumble. Sounds complicated.

If these changes could be made in a fairly straight-forward, up-down
vote, then yeah, I'd advocate for the incremental, piece-meal
approach.

Given all that's involved (and I'm wondering if we'll ever begin that
process unless someone is specifically assigned those tasks that you
described, David), it does seem like an all-at-once approach is
somewhat more prudent.

I guess the bylaws are in place to prevent arbitrary or short-sighted
changes, but clearly they do impede certain kinds of progress!

Chris

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:40 AM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com> wrote:
> I see the downside is that making any chage to the IPR docs is not a normal
> Membership vote as we've done in the past.  Rather, any changes to the IPR
> Docs require a 21 day notice period, multiple electronic notices to the
> "legal" contacts provided on a myriad of paper and electronic forms we've
> collected, a blog post at the beginning of the 21 day period, the ability
> for a Member to denote a proxy voter (e.g. allow me to let Six Apart's
> lawyer login and vote under the Six Apart membership for this vote only via
> our software), and either a subermajority vote of 60% of our Membership with
> a majority of the Board or a supermajority of 30% of our Membership with a
> supermajority of the Board.
> So, given that before we can hold this vote we need to (beyond drafting the
> notices and blog post):
> 1) Find all of the legal contacts that we've been provided over the past
> year and a half
> 2) Modify our voting software to allow a Member to denote a proxy voter for
> this one vote
> This should all happen before the 21 day notice period because if on the
> 22nd day we're not ready to vote, we'll have to issue a new notice period
> and start over again.
> --David
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Brian Kissel wrote:
>
> 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
> Subject: Re: Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote
>
> +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] On Behalf
> Of David Recordon
>> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 1:05 AM
>> To: 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] On Behalf
> Of Mike Jones
>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:02 PM
>> To: 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] On Behalf
> Of Brian Kissel
>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:15 PM
>> To: 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] On Behalf
> Of Nat Sakimura
>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:58 PM
>> To: david at sixapart.com; 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> 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] On Behalf
> Of Mike Jones
>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:55 AM
>> To: 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] On Behalf
> Of Brian Kissel
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:29 PM
>> To: 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'
>> 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
>> 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
> CEO, JanRain - OpenID-enable your websites, customers, partners, and
> employees
> 5331 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 375, Portland, OR 97239
> Email: 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
>> 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/
>
>
> __________ 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
>> 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
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>



--
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
  Open Web Advocate-at-Large

factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board at openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board




More information about the board mailing list