[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

Thu Jan 15 19:14:08 UTC 2009

+1

________________________________

From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
Behalf Of Eric Sachs
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:09 AM
To: board at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

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/20090115/59d1d99f/attachment-0002.htm>