[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

[Nat Sakimura]

I somehow had an impression that an implementer's draft has to go through 
membership vote as well, but apparently it is not. (I probably got the 
impression that because WG recommends it to be an implementer's draft. If it 
just recommends, there has to be a body that accepts and endorse it.)

My intension was that "OpenIDT" can be used only after the membership vote.

I will revise the motion accordingly later.

I have other comments on the user interface etc. portion, but this is not 
directly relevant to this specific topic, so I will defer to elsewhere that 
I will not conflate this topic with others.

=nat

--------------------------------------------------
From: "David Recordon" <david at sixapart.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 12:25 PM
To: <board at openid.net>
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

> Considering that an Implementors Draft is a stage determined by the 
> Working Group, I don't believe that it should then be able to call itself 
> "OpenID".  The tension we're seeing here was discussed about a month ago 
> where right now there are nearly no hurdles toward the end of the process 
> to make sure that a specification really is "OpenID".  Instead, we're 
> seeing the Specs Council place that hurdle at the beginning.
>
> So, yes this process needs to become easier to get started but it isn't 
> going to do get the community closer to our goals of simplicity, user 
> experience (which the CX proposal explicitly states is out of scope!) and 
> mainstream adoption if any specification becomes OpenID.
>
> --David
>
> On Jan 15, 2009, at 12:01 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
> 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<mailto: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<mailto: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/
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net<mailto:board at openid.net>
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>