[OpenID] Fwd: Several Questions for the Current & Future Board
Peter Williams
pwilliams at rapattoni.com
Sat Dec 20 20:20:27 UTC 2008
I think there is a lot to be gained from being on the board (and those subgroups that have access to all the issues, in realtime - particularly ipr litigation ongoings - given the basis for the foundation).
Once you operate at this level, the information itself should be granting you (or your firm) access to the consortiums forming to bid some usg funded project (hint), the ability to license your "enhanced" code library to the new startup in return for equity share (rsa owned part of netscape precisely via this route, assuring certs went worldwide, sidestepping w3c), access to the network of those who do board work on related areas (often faciliated by smooth talking vc firms) from which to access the bundle of ip that completes a product offering (eg bundle claimid hashes).
UKG apparently spent public money at the university of kent on openid, last year. Do we have access to its final report and the data and the experimental setup and the list of piloting sites and the contacts...? Betcha anything certain board members had access (or had access to its penultimate draft at least)! I'd love to see the results. Doubt I ever will.
US Realtor individuals volunteer for their 1000+ city boards mostly to engineer access to the rules, which govern the local market and set fining power and policy (to regulate conduct). early acess to the draft rules allows one to better position broker offices, etc, once a new area opens up for development... Early access to the migration trend studies similary allows folks to tune their networking with the city folk seeking elections in the official space... By the time this is all published to the membership that pays for the study...the vitality of the conclusions is often way down. And as always, those in the know ARE politicking, over the rules and are seeking to influence realtime events.
A vibrant openid board/community should show the same dynamics. It looks like its developing just fine, here.
More!
-----Original Message-----
From: chris.messina at gmail.com <chris.messina at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 10:55 AM
To: general at openid.net <general at openid.net>
Subject: [OpenID] Fwd: Several Questions for the Current & Future Board
(reply-to missed the list)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: chris.messina at gmail.com
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:54:45 -0800
Subject: Re: [OpenID] Several Questions for the Current & Future Board
To: Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk>
Indeed, considering that most votes of the board are done with email
roll call (+1, -1, abstain), we have no idea whether someone's email
account has been hijacked or whether someone is holding a gun to their
head as they hit send.
Still, I think Martin's point is perfectly valid at present: since the
eligible number of voters is small, and since the list of members is
currently not even public, it's hard to imagine tampering.
Heck, as a candidate I don't even know who I should be campaigning
for! ;) (It's not like there's a list of swing OPs or even anecdotal
polling going on!).
Still, I would be curious about making sure there's integrity in the
outcome, and that, as the foundation grows, our mechanisms for
ensuring as much scale.
Chris
On 12/20/08, Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Nat,
>
> I agree that the election should be as transparent as possible.
>
> However, on the topic of voter anonymity and coersion, I agree that this
> may be a problem in a national election or something of similar
> significance, but since there is comparatively little to be gained from
> being on the board of directors for the OpenID Foundation I would not
> expect candidates to go to such lengths as threatening voters with
> weapons in order to get votes.
>
> It would be interesting, however, to hear about how other organisations
> with an elected board or similar structure handle this situation.
>
> Nat Sakimura wrote:
>> Just for a record, I am in favor of making the software
>> publicly inspect-able etc.
>> Transparency matters, and it is one of the greatest tool that we are
>> given.
>> From previous posts on other topics, I think you have found that I am a
>> fan of transparency.
>>
>> Now that the election is almost over, I may as well comment on the
>> issues on the e-voting.
>> Guaranteeing a free will voting is a hard topic. The reason we have a
>> closed room in person anonymous voting with inspectors in most political
>> elections are actually to guarantee it.
>> When it comes to e-voting, this gets rather hard.
>>
>> In e-voting scenario, there is no inspector at the time of voting. It
>> may just so happen that the person was forced to vote with a gun. To
>> mitigate it, one has to be allowed to change his vote. (Still not
>> perfect, but is much better.)
>>
>> There also has to be a guarantee of anonymity because it may result in a
>> retaliation.
>> I do not know how it was assured in this election, but perhaps the fact
>> that we were not allowed to re-cast the vote was related to it. I do not
>> have a solution to fulfill the both requirement. Perhaps a person with
>> more knowledge in this field can enlighten me.
>>
>> For financial transparency: there has to be, and I have repeatedly made
>> this statement, so my position has been pretty clear, I hope.
>>
>> =nat
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM, David Fuelling <sappenin at gmail.com
>> <mailto:sappenin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I have a few questions for either the current or future board members:
>>
>> 1. What kind of software are we using for the election, who
>> created it, and will it be released publicly for
>> audit/inspection purposes?
>> 1. Do current candidate have an opinion about OIDF voting
>> software being publicly inspectable/available?
>> 2. Does the OIDF currently make it's budget and financial
>> expenditure information public?
>> 1. Do current candidate have a position on providing full
>> financial transparency of OIDF moving forward?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at openid.net <mailto:general at openid.net>
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
--
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
Open Technology Advocate-at-Large
Vote in the OpenID Board Election!
http://tr.im/vote_oidf
factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
--
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
Open Technology Advocate-at-Large
Vote in the OpenID Board Election!
http://tr.im/vote_oidf
factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general at openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
More information about the general
mailing list