[OpenID board] Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote

Chris Messina chris.messina at gmail.com
Sat Jan 31 22:06:32 UTC 2009


Might I also ask if it's worth looking at the work coming out of the OWF in
this area w/r/t the Working Group process? As you suggest David, it's better
to make these changes once.
http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-legal/web/owf-final-specification-agreement---proposed-draft

Chris

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:50 PM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com> wrote:

> +board at openid.net
>
> I think the immediate next step is having a lawyer involved (as needed) to
> make the appropriate changes to the IPR Process document before the 21 day
> period can commence.  As I said in a previous email, considering how much
> effort is designed into changing the IPR Policy or Process, I think it is
> worthwhile to do this once rather than multiple times this year.  The two
> items which I know are currently being discussed which I would like to see
> rolled into this vote are:
> 1) Drastically shortening or removing the notification period of a
> membership vote to create a new Working Group once the Specs Council has
> reccomended it.
> 2) Clarifying if a Working Group must produce an Implementor's Draft before
> a Final Draft given the IPR implications of not doing so.
> 3) Resolving and adding language to allow organizations like MySpace AOL
> and Plaxo – who have corporate parents – to contribute to Working Groups.
>
> I would thus ask that the Board re-charter an IPR Committee to resolve
> these issues as expeditiously as possible thus resulting in *one* membership
> vote to ideally approve all of these changes versus a series of votes over
> the course of the year.  All three of these additional items are changes
> that have been discussed and many have proposals on the table.
>
> --David
>
> ----- "Brian Kissel" <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:
> > >
>
> Guys, are we clear on next steps to move Nat's 4 proposals on for a full
> membership vote and are those activities underway?  What is the ETA for
> being able to start the 21 day notification process?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > Brian
>
> *==============*
>
> *Brian Kissel*
>
> *Cell: 503.866.4424*
>
> *Fax: 503.296.5502*
>
>
>  >
>
> *From:* Brian Kissel
> > *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2009 9:46 AM
> > *To:* 'david at sixapart.com'
> > *Cc:* board at openid.net
> > *Subject:* Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote
>
>
>
> Not following you David.  I thought your recommendation was that the exact
> wording had to be done before beginning the 21 day notification, so that was
> what I was asking Nat to provide when ready.  I'm also working with Refresh
> Media to see if we have an official mailing list for all members we can use
> per the email from Mike Jones below.  I'm sure Nat would love to work with
> you for what goes on the OIDF homepage, Nat?  Just trying to keep this
> process moving per section 3.4 and the dialog below.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > Brian
>
> *==============*
>
> *Brian Kissel*
>
> *Cell: 503.866.4424*
>
> *Fax: 503.296.5502*
>
>
>  >
>
> *From:* David Recordon [mailto:david at sixapart.com]
> > *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2009 9:39 AM
> > *To:* Brian Kissel
> > *Cc:* board at openid.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
> results are in
>
>
>
> I take it that you're ignoring what I said and not even acknowledging it
> with a direct response?
>
>
>
> As to emailing the members, we need to email legal contacts as well if the
> members provided them which I'm unsure how the membership tool
> currently captures.  We do however have legal contacts for many of the
> companies that signed contribution agreements for working groups which the
> ones I know of can be found in
> http://openid.net/ipr/Non-Assertion-Agreement/executed/.
>
>
>
> I'm also happy to help draft/edit this blog post given that it is valuable
> to tie into a larger narrative about how the IPR work we did has since
> influenced other communities in a major way.
>
>
>
> --David
>
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Brian Kissel wrote:
>
>
>
> Nat, please let me know when you have the wording completed so we can post
> on the OIDF homepage and send out an email to all OIDF members for the
> notification period before the vote.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > Brian
>
> *==============*
>
> *Brian Kissel*
>
> *Cell: 503.866.4424*
>
> *Fax: 503.296.5502*
>
>
>  >
>
> *From:* board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net<board-bounces at openid.net>
> ] *On Behalf Of *David Recordon
> > *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2009 1:05 AM
> > *To:* board at openid.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
> results are in
>
>
>
> I believe that Mike was objecting to starting the 21 day clock without
> actual text changes in the document.  I would advise that this work be
> delegated to the IPR Committee (if we even still have one) and for them to
> come back to the board once there is actual blessed text to review.
>
>
>
> I still believe that given a 21 day review period coupled with the high
> degree of notifications and voting required to change the IPR Policy and
> Process that taking an extra few days to round up any other changes is truly
> the best path forward.  We know this Process is broken as we've tried to use
> it a few times and we have groups like "Step2" creating new work outside of
> the OpenID Foundation because our Process is too complex and difficult to
> navigate.  Let's fix that instead of trying to ignore the entire set of
> problems for expediency especially when the Specs Council is now actually
> starting to work again.
>
>
>
> --David
>
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Brian Kissel wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear, I only meant to start the 21 day clock for the 4
> spec process improvement motions that Nat made that have already been
> approved by the board.  The exact wording for those motions are the same as
> they word for the board votes.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > Brian
>
> *==============*
>
> *Brian Kissel*
>
> *Cell: 503.866.4424*
>
> *Fax: 503.296.5502*
>
>
>   >
>
> *From:* board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net<board-bounces at openid.net>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Mike Jones
> > *Sent:* Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:02 PM
> > *To:* board at openid.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
> results are in
>
>
>
> Yes, I am opposed.   The notification must include the precise proposed
> text changes to the IPR documents, preferably as tracked changes to the
> approved originals, so the lawyers know exactly what changes are being
> considered to our IPR policy and process.  Until those precise changes are
> drafted and available, we can not start the 21-day legal review process.
>
>
>
>                                                                 -- Mike
>
>
>   >
>
> *From:* board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net<board-bounces at openid.net>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Brian Kissel
> > *Sent:* Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:15 PM
> > *To:* board at openid.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
> results are in
>
>
>
> Given that we need a 21 day notification for a membership vote, I'd suggest
> we start that official notification now.  Anyone opposed to that?
>
>
>
> Nat, can you create the posting for the home page of the OIDF website,
> which is also required?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > Brian
>
> *==============*
>
> *Brian Kissel*
>
> *Cell: 503.866.4424*
>
> *Fax: 503.296.5502*
>
>
>  >
>
> *From:* board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net<board-bounces at openid.net>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Nat Sakimura
> > *Sent:* Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:58 PM
> > *To:* david at sixapart.com; board at openid.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
> results are in
>
>
>
> Hmmm. While this option sounds attractive, we might want to take two phased
> approach.
> > I have just made motions for the urgent things. If we start requirement
> gathering at this stage, it will delay these changes.
> >
> > So, my proposal is to do what the board vote approved in parallel to the
> longer term ammendment with requirement gatherings. (BTW, there are bunch of
> things that I want to list under this mid-term project.)
> >
> > I will draft the ammendment to the Process document this weekend.
> >
> > One of the motion is unrelated to the Process document, but to assign the
> committee liaison the power to take an initiative to facilitate and advance
> the specs process. i.e., David is now officially empowered to chase down the
> specs council members as well as to help out the proposers so that the
> process goes as quick as it can.
> >
> > I have not seen much progress on OpenID+OAuth hybrid and CX specs council
> process. I hope this will improve the situation.
> >
> > =nat
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:10 AM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com>
> wrote:
>
> Given that there are some other things we'd like to amend to the IPR
> Process, should we try to capture the entire list of changes we wish to make
> so we only need to do this once?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Brian Kissel wrote:
>
>
>
>     OK thanks Mike.  Do we have a "members" email address to start the
> membership notification period?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > Brian
>
> *==============*
>
> *Brian Kissel*
>
> *Cell: 503.866.4424*
>
> *Fax: 503.296.5502*
>
>
>   >
>
> *From:* board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net<board-bounces at openid.net>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Mike Jones
> > *Sent:* Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:55 AM
> > *To:* board at openid.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
> results are in
>
>
>
> We can not amend the process doc without a membership vote, and the
> following criteria being met, as per section 3.4 of the process:
>
>
>
> ·          21 day notice period
>
> ·          Multiple electronic notice required (if the OIDF member has
> provided multiple addresses), including to a "legal contact," if provided
>
> ·          Prominent posting (at least 21 days in advance of the beginning
> of the voting period) on homepage of OIDF website
>
> ·          7 day voting period after end of notice period (if vote is not
> taken at a properly-noticed meeting)
>
> ·          OIDF members may designate a proxy from the member's registered
> OpenID identifier specifying the designated proxy's OpenID identifier
>
> ·          Any approved change is prospective only
>
> ·          Approval of a change requires *either* of the following:
>
> *Approval Option 1*
>
> o    Quorum of greater of 60% of OIDF membership or 30 OIDF members (*no
> bypass option*) *and*
>
> o    Supermajority vote of those constituting a quorum, plus a majority
> concurrence by the OIDF Board
>
> *Approval Option 2*
>
> o    Quorum of greater of 30% of OIDF membership or 30 OIDF members (*no
> bypass option*) *and*
>
> o    Majority vote of those constituting a quorum, plus a supermajority
> concurrence by the entire OIDF Board (where "absents" and "abstains" count
> as "no" votes)
>
> Any change to the IPR Policy or Processes will not be effective until 21
> days after approval, during which time then-current Contributors may
> withdraw in accordance with the IPR Policy or Processes as they existed
> prior to the change
>
>
>
> Nat could produce an updated draft of the doc (which should have tracked
> changes on relative to the approved version) for legal membership review
> prior to the vote, but none of this can go into effect until the membership
> vote has occurred and met the criteria above.
>
>
>
>                                                                 -- Mike
>
>
>   >
>
> *From:* board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net<board-bounces at openid.net>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Brian Kissel
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:29 PM
> > *To:* board at openid.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
> results are in
>
>
>
> Thanks to everyone for your timely voting.  While the polls are still open,
> all 4 of the motions made by Nat have passed.  Nat can you take care of
> modifying the OpenID process document?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > Brian
>
> *==============*
>
> *Brian Kissel*
>
> *Cell: 503.866.4424*
>
> *Fax: 503.296.5502*
>
>
>   >
>
> *From:* Brian Kissel
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:24 PM
> > *To:* 'board at openid.net <%27board at openid.net>'
> > *Subject:* RE: 4 spec process improvement board votes - please go to the
> website and vote
>
>
>
> Hello All, just a reminder to go to the website and vote on these 4
> motions.  To date we only have 5 votes and we need 7 for a majority
> decision.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> > Brian
>
> *==============*
>
> *Brian Kissel*
>
> *Cell: 503.866.4424*
>
> *Fax: 503.296.5502*
>
>
>   >
>
> *From:* Brian Kissel
> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 24, 2009 1:16 PM
> > *To:* board at openid.net
> > *Subject:* 4 spec process improvement board votes
>
>
>
> Hello OIDF board members,
>
>
>
> The four spec process improvement motions made by Nat Sakimura and seconded
> by Brian Kissel have now completed the seven day notification and discussion
> period.  Each motion is now available for board voting on the OIDF polling
> tool.   A simple majority vote by 7 or more board members is required for
> approval on each motion.  The vote ends on January 31st, 2009.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> > Brian
>
> *___________*
>
> * *
>
> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>*
>
> *CEO, JanRain - **OpenID-enable your websites, customers, partners, and
> employees*
>
> 5331 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 375, Portland, OR 97239
>
> *Email*: bkissel at janrain.com     *Cell*: 503.866.4424     *Fax*:
> 503.296.5502
>
>
>
>
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3796 (20090124) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3805 (20090127) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
>
>
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3805 (20090127) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
>
>
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > board mailing list
> > board at openid.net
> > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
> >
>
> > --
> > Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> > http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
>
>
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
> >
> > 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 3811 (20090129) __________
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20090131/f591bf15/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the board mailing list