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

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Sat Jan 17 05:43:57 UTC 2009


Skitch.com registration was rather nice. Only, if they could accept my
OpenID as a screen name, that was perfect.

Having said that, I could not figure out how to create the template...
I would love to learn.

=nat

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090117/c727bdcc/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the board mailing list