[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process - notification of 7 day discussion period

Brian Kissel bkissel at janrain.com
Fri Jan 16 22:16:06 UTC 2009


Excellent Chris, great start, thanks.

Cheers,

Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502


-----Original Message-----
From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Chris Messina
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 2:02 PM
To: board at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process - notification of 7 day discussion period

I have created a template that can be tweaked that could be used for
this, and other votes:

https://openid.pbwiki.com/Call-for-Vote

When you create a new page for a vote, you can use this template by
choosing it from the list of templates:

http://skitch.com/factoryjoe/bbpqa/openid-wiki-create-a-new-page

If you have ideas to improve the template, please do so. I took my
best stab at it, but it could definitely use some massaging.

It might be useful for Nat to create a new page for this current vote
and fill out the template to see if we're missing anything.

Chris

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:
> This motion has been seconded by Mike, Raj, Eric, Brian, and Gary.
> Therefore we're starting the 7 day notification and discussion clock for an
> online board-only vote.  There will be a separate vote for each motion.
>
>
>
> If anyone has suggestions on how to ensure that the discussion and voting
> process complies with our bylaws, is fair, open, and efficient, please
> provide your input.  Given that board meetings are only every six weeks and
> that historically it's been hard to get a large percentage of our board
> members to participate on calls, I'd like to suggest that we try to do more
> routine administrative votes via our board voting tool.  If, during the
> notification and discussion period, we determine that the issues are too
> involved or complex to adequately decide via an online vote, we can always
> cancel the online vote and defer the vote until the next regularly scheduled
> board meeting.  Does that sound reasonable to everyone?
>
>
>
> One thing that I haven't seen is how long we should keep the polls open for
> each vote.  For the board nominations and elections, it was 2 weeks, which
> made sense.  However, one of our goals in 2009 is to be more timely in our
> execution.  So I'd like to suggest that the default period for an online
> board vote is 7 days or until the required majority has been reached.  For
> example, on the International Liaison vote, we already have 10 yes votes and
> zero no votes in one day, so I believe that this motion has passed.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to feedback from others.
>
>
>
> 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 Raj Mata
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:14 AM
> To: board at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process
>
>
>
> +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
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 3769 (20090115) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 3772 (20090116) __________
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
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



More information about the board mailing list