[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Fri Jan 16 03:47:32 UTC 2009


Oops...

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp> wrote:

> 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.


Typo: "OpenID(TM)" ,


>
>
> I will revise the motion accordingly later.


and not "OpenIDT". Also, this is pending on what other board members feel.


>
> 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
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20090116/2947905e/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the board mailing list