Skitch.com registration was rather nice. Only, if they could accept my OpenID as a screen name, that was perfect. <br><br>Having said that, I could not figure out how to create the template... <br>I would love to learn. <br>
<br>=nat<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Brian Kissel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bkissel@janrain.com">bkissel@janrain.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Excellent Chris, great start, thanks.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
==============<br>
Brian Kissel<br>
Cell: 503.866.4424<br>
Fax: 503.296.5502<br>
<br>
<br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:board-bounces@openid.net">board-bounces@openid.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:board-bounces@openid.net">board-bounces@openid.net</a>] On Behalf Of Chris Messina<br>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 2:02 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process - notification of 7 day discussion period<br>
<br>
I have created a template that can be tweaked that could be used for<br>
this, and other votes:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://openid.pbwiki.com/Call-for-Vote" target="_blank">https://openid.pbwiki.com/Call-for-Vote</a><br>
<br>
When you create a new page for a vote, you can use this template by<br>
choosing it from the list of templates:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://skitch.com/factoryjoe/bbpqa/openid-wiki-create-a-new-page" target="_blank">http://skitch.com/factoryjoe/bbpqa/openid-wiki-create-a-new-page</a><br>
<br>
If you have ideas to improve the template, please do so. I took my<br>
best stab at it, but it could definitely use some massaging.<br>
<br>
It might be useful for Nat to create a new page for this current vote<br>
and fill out the template to see if we're missing anything.<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Brian Kissel <<a href="mailto:bkissel@janrain.com">bkissel@janrain.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> This motion has been seconded by Mike, Raj, Eric, Brian, and Gary.<br>
> Therefore we're starting the 7 day notification and discussion clock for an<br>
> online board-only vote. There will be a separate vote for each motion.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> If anyone has suggestions on how to ensure that the discussion and voting<br>
> process complies with our bylaws, is fair, open, and efficient, please<br>
> provide your input. Given that board meetings are only every six weeks and<br>
> that historically it's been hard to get a large percentage of our board<br>
> members to participate on calls, I'd like to suggest that we try to do more<br>
> routine administrative votes via our board voting tool. If, during the<br>
> notification and discussion period, we determine that the issues are too<br>
> involved or complex to adequately decide via an online vote, we can always<br>
> cancel the online vote and defer the vote until the next regularly scheduled<br>
> board meeting. Does that sound reasonable to everyone?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> One thing that I haven't seen is how long we should keep the polls open for<br>
> each vote. For the board nominations and elections, it was 2 weeks, which<br>
> made sense. However, one of our goals in 2009 is to be more timely in our<br>
> execution. So I'd like to suggest that the default period for an online<br>
> board vote is 7 days or until the required majority has been reached. For<br>
> example, on the International Liaison vote, we already have 10 yes votes and<br>
> zero no votes in one day, so I believe that this motion has passed.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Looking forward to feedback from others.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Brian<br>
><br>
> ==============<br>
><br>
> Brian Kissel<br>
><br>
> Cell: 503.866.4424<br>
><br>
> Fax: 503.296.5502<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:board-bounces@openid.net">board-bounces@openid.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:board-bounces@openid.net">board-bounces@openid.net</a>] On Behalf<br>
> Of Raj Mata<br>
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:14 AM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> +1<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:board-bounces@openid.net">board-bounces@openid.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:board-bounces@openid.net">board-bounces@openid.net</a>] On Behalf<br>
> Of Eric Sachs<br>
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:09 AM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Also agreed, thx Nat<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Mike Jones <<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> These motions all make sense to me - particularly since creation of the PAPE<br>
> working group was delayed for so long due to specs council issues and I'm<br>
> watching the same play out with the current proposals. Having been there<br>
> when we came up with the idea of the specs council, the idea behind it was<br>
> for it to provide useful feedback cutting across the different<br>
> specifications while proposals were being discussed and to make a timely<br>
> recommendation once a proposal was formally submitted - NOT to be an<br>
> impediment to the creation of working groups or a hurdle that proposals had<br>
> to clear.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Thanks for taking the time to write these up, Nat. They should make the<br>
> specs council reality more closely match the intent, and substantially<br>
> improve the present situation.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
><br>
> -- Mike<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:board-bounces@openid.net">board-bounces@openid.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:board-bounces@openid.net">board-bounces@openid.net</a>] On Behalf<br>
> Of Brian Kissel<br>
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:17 AM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Nat, thank you for your proactive efforts to help improve the effectiveness<br>
> and efficiency of our spec process. As I understand it, the board needs to<br>
> vote on your motions, then present to the membership for approval. I second<br>
> all four of Nat's motions below for a vote by the board.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Hopefully we'll have the board polling tool working this week, so look for<br>
> an email notification for pending board votes on each of these motions.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> If others would like to discuss Nat's proposals before the vote, please<br>
> provide your thoughts to the group.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Brian<br>
><br>
> ==============<br>
><br>
> Brian Kissel<br>
><br>
> Cell: 503.866.4424<br>
><br>
> Fax: 503.296.5502<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:board-bounces@openid.net">board-bounces@openid.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:board-bounces@openid.net">board-bounces@openid.net</a>] On Behalf<br>
> Of Nat Sakimura<br>
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:01 AM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
> Subject: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Hi.<br>
><br>
> After having worked through PAPE 1.0 spec process, as well as some other<br>
> spec proposals, I noticed that there can be several things that we can do to<br>
> smooth the process. I think they were worthwhile excercises to find out<br>
> these glitches.<br>
><br>
> Followings are the proposed motions that I would like the board to consider.<br>
> There are two types: one that can take effect immediately, and one that<br>
> requires board and membership voting.<br>
><br>
> I. For immediate implementation of the current process:<br>
><br>
> One of the obstacles that we have found during the process was that it was<br>
> kind of hard to get the specs council to deliver the recommendation in a<br>
> timely fashion. It has seen some improvement recently, but we want to make<br>
> sure to continue it. Thus, I would like to propose the following:<br>
><br>
> BE IT RESOLVED that the OIDF Committee Liason is directed to act as the<br>
> coordinator for the specification council so that specification council<br>
> create a recommendation for the membership about a formal working group<br>
> proposal within 15 days of the complete proposal being circulated on<br>
> <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a> to comply to the current OpenID process.<br>
><br>
> II. Improvements of curent porcess<br>
><br>
> As a longer term solution, I would like to propose the following three<br>
> motions. The first two are to make sure the timely and effective response<br>
> from the specs council, and the last one is to protect the OpenID(TM) as<br>
> well as to make it easier to create a WG so that all the discussion will be<br>
> done inside the WG and the output is IPR clean.<br>
><br>
> BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to<br>
> amend the OpenID process document so that should the specifications council<br>
> not create a recommendation for the membership about a formal working group<br>
> proposal within 15 days of the complete proposal being circulated on<br>
> <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net">specs@openid.net</a>, then the proposal may proceed to a membership vote for<br>
> approval.<br>
><br>
> BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to<br>
> amend the OpenID process document so that should specs council members not<br>
> participate in the discussion of two consecutive working group proposals,<br>
> they will be deemed to have resigned, and new specs council members who are<br>
> committed to participating in the process will be appointed to replace them.<br>
><br>
> BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to<br>
> amend the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft may claim OpenID<br>
> trademark until it is ratified to be an implementor's draft status or full<br>
> specification status.<br>
><br>
> Please note that these consitute the core decision for IPR and process, so<br>
> it will have to go through the membership vote as well after creating the<br>
> actual errata.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> =nat<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
> <a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/" target="_blank">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature<br>
> database 3768 (20090115) __________<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.eset.com" target="_blank">http://www.eset.com</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature<br>
> database 3769 (20090115) __________<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.eset.com" target="_blank">http://www.eset.com</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> board mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature<br>
> database 3769 (20090115) __________<br>
><br>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.eset.com" target="_blank">http://www.eset.com</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature<br>
> database 3772 (20090116) __________<br>
><br>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.eset.com" target="_blank">http://www.eset.com</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> board mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Chris Messina<br>
Citizen-Participant &<br>
Open Web Advocate-at-Large<br>
<br>
<a href="http://factoryjoe.com" target="_blank">factoryjoe.com</a> # <a href="http://diso-project.org" target="_blank">diso-project.org</a><br>
<a href="http://citizenagency.com" target="_blank">citizenagency.com</a> # <a href="http://vidoop.com" target="_blank">vidoop.com</a><br>
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br><a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>