[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

Eric Sachs esachs at google.com
Thu Jan 15 19:09:17 UTC 2009


Also agreed, thx Nat

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>wrote:

>  These motions all make sense to me – particularly since creation of the
> PAPE working group was delayed for so long due to specs council issues and
> I'm watching the same play out with the current proposals.  Having been
> there when we came up with the idea of the specs council, the idea behind it
> was for it to provide useful feedback cutting across the different
> specifications while proposals were being discussed and to make a timely
> recommendation once a proposal was formally submitted – NOT to be an
> impediment to the creation of working groups or a hurdle that proposals had
> to clear.
>
>
>
> Thanks for taking the time to write these up, Nat.  They should make the
> specs council reality more closely match the intent, and substantially
> improve the present situation.
>
>
>
>                                                                 Thanks,
>
>                                                                 -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Brian Kissel
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:17 AM
> *To:* board at openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process
>
>
>
> Nat, thank you for your proactive efforts to help improve the effectiveness
> and efficiency of our spec process.  As I understand it, the board needs to
> vote on your motions, then present to the membership for approval.  I second
> all four of Nat's motions below for a vote by the board.
>
>
>
> Hopefully we'll have the board polling tool working this week, so look for
> an email notification for pending board votes on each of these motions.
>
>
>
> If others would like to discuss Nat's proposals before the vote, please
> provide your thoughts to the group.
>
>
>
> 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 15, 2009 12:01 AM
> *To:* board at openid.net
> *Subject:* [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process
>
>
>
> Hi.
>
> After having worked through PAPE 1.0 spec process, as well as some other
> spec proposals, I noticed that there can be several things that we can do to
> smooth the process. I think they were worthwhile excercises to find out
> these glitches.
>
> Followings are the proposed motions that I would like the board to
> consider. There are two types: one that can take effect immediately, and one
> that requires board and membership voting.
>
> *I. For immediate implementation of the current process: *
>
> One of the obstacles that we have found during the process was that it was
> kind of hard to get the specs council to deliver the recommendation in a
> timely fashion. It has seen some improvement recently, but we want to make
> sure to continue it. Thus, I would like to propose the following:
>
>
> *BE IT RESOLVED that the OIDF Committee Liason is directed to act as the
> coordinator for the specification council so that specification council
> create a recommendation for the membership about a formal working group
> proposal within 15 days of the complete proposal being circulated on
> specs at openid.net to comply to the current OpenID process. *
>
> *II. Improvements of curent porcess*
>
> As a longer term solution, I would like to propose the following three
> motions. The first two are to make sure the timely and effective response
> from the specs council, and the last one is to protect the OpenID(TM) as
> well as to make it easier to create a WG so that all the discussion will be
> done inside the WG and the output is IPR clean.
>
> *
> BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to
> amend the OpenID process document so that should the specifications council
> not create a recommendation for the membership about a formal working group
> proposal within 15 days of the complete proposal being circulated on
> specs at openid.net, then the proposal may proceed to a membership vote for
> approval. *
>
> *BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to
> amend the OpenID process document so that should specs council members not
> participate in the discussion of two consecutive working group proposals,
> they will be deemed to have resigned, and new specs council members who are
> committed to participating in the process will be appointed to replace them.
> *
>
> *BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to
> amend the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft may claim OpenID
> trademark until it is ratified to be an implementor's draft status or full
> specification status. *
>
> Please note that these consitute the core decision for IPR and process, so
> it will have to go through the membership vote as well after creating the
> actual errata.
>
> Cheers,
>
> =nat
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3768 (20090115) __________
>
>
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3769 (20090115) __________
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20090115/ba7fbc60/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the board mailing list