[OpenID board] Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote
Chris Messina
chris.messina at gmail.com
Wed Feb 4 07:31:13 UTC 2009
+1. Sounds reasonable for now; gets things us unstuck.
Chris
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:56 PM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com> wrote:
> How about we include these two changes, but not the third that I proposed,
> given that the first ties into the creation of new working groups and the
> second seems like an oversight rather than anything else.
>
> 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 that a Working Group must produce an Implementor's Draft
> before a Final Draft given the IPR implications of not doing so.
>
> --David
>
> On Feb 3, 2009, at 8:43 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the board
mailing list