[OpenID board] [board-private] Reminder: OIDF BOD vote on Nat's 4 spec process improvement motions

[Brian Kissel]

Nat, is there a more current version than this?  The actual text of your proposal, which I took from your email, was the text I was intending to put into the board polling tool.

If there is a more current version, please send it to me.

Cheers,

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


-----Original Message-----
From: board-private-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-private-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of David Recordon
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 3:36 PM
To: board-private at openid.net
Cc: board at openid.net
Subject: Re: [board-private] Reminder: OIDF BOD vote on Nat's 4 spec process improvement motions

Hey Brian,
I don't believe this captures the latest motions that Nat made.

--David

On Jan 16, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Brian Kissel wrote:

> When: Friday, January 23, 2009 6:00 AM-6:30 AM (GMT-08:00) Pacific
> Time (US & Canada).
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
> FYI, this is a reminder that the online vote for Nat's four motions
> will start on Friday Jan 23rd.
>
> 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.
>
> <mime-attachment.ics>_______________________________________________
> board-private mailing list
> board-private at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board-private

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


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3772 (20090116) __________

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