[OpenID] [OpenID board] PAPE Vote Discussion

David Recordon drecordon at sixapart.com
Tue Dec 23 21:56:51 UTC 2008


When you publish an Implementor's Draft, it binds contributors to  
their IP contributions.  A WG can publish an unlimited number of  
drafts and through the draft phase a contributor can drop out and not  
be bound to make a patent promise on drafts they've contributed to.   
Once you get an Implementor's Draft, contributors make a limited  
promise during the period of review (so that people can safely  
implement it for testing) and then at the end of the review period  
unless you've raised an objection, you're bound to make a patent  
promise on that Implementor's Draft even if you later withdraw.  Thus  
if a WG publishes Draft 3 and I drop out afterwards, I have no  
committment around patents.  However, if I stay through the review  
period of Implementor's Draft 4 and don't raise objections, if I then  
drop out I am still committed to what was in Implementor's Draft 4.

This is covered in Section 3 of the IPR Policy:
> 3. Withdrawal.  A Contributor may withdraw from a Work Group at any  
> time by providing at
> least seven (7) days’ written notice to the OpenID Foundation.  The  
> withdrawing Contributor will,
> in perpetuity, remain subject to Section V, as applied to copyrights  
> in any Contributions made
> before the effective date of such withdrawal, and to the limited  
> patent promise in Section VI.1, as
> applied to any Implementers Drafts or Final Specifications accepted  
> by the Contributor.  A
> Contributor has “accepted” an Implementers Draft or Final  
> Specification if the Contributor (in
> accordance with the applicable OpenID Process and after a formal  
> call by an editor of the applicable
> Specification to recommend adoption of the then-current draft  
> Specification as an Implementers
> Draft or an applicable Implementers Draft as a Final Specification):  
> (a) expressly voted to
> recommend adoption (or otherwise recommended adoption, in writing in  
> (or on the record of), any
> assessment of consensus); (b) failed timely to vote to recommend  
> disapproval of such adoption (or
> otherwise to disapprove of such adoption, in writing in (or on the  
> record of) any assessment of
> consensus); or (c) expressly and timely voted to recommend  
> disapproval of such adoption (other
> otherwise disapproved of such adoption, in writing in (or on the  
> record of) any assessment of
> consensus), yet failed to provide to the OpenID Foundation notice of  
> intent to withdraw, or notice
> of an appeal to the OpenID board of directors, within forty-five  
> (45) days after the Specification
> editor announces either that the Work Group has reached consensus  
> (or has voted) to recommend
> adoption.  If, however, a Contributor timely requests appeal as  
> provided in the foregoing sentence,
> then: (y) the time to serve notice of withdrawal (solely for  
> Contributors seeking appeal) will be
> deemed extended until fourteen (14) days after the OpenID Foundation  
> board of directors
> announces its decision or recommendation on the appeal; and (z) any  
> effect of the adoption of the
> applicable Implementers Draft or Final Specification will be deemed  
> stayed until seven (7) days
> after  any recommendation of the OpenID Foundation board of  
> directors has been voted upon by the
> OpenID membership as provided in the applicable OpenID Process.

--David

On Dec 23, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Martin Atkins wrote:

> David Recordon wrote:
>> I'm also unconvinced that the working group (which I'm a part of)
>> followed the process as outlined for the work leading up to a  
>> membership
>> vote.  While I tried to discuss this on the PAPE mailing list  
>> yesterday,
>> Mike had the opposite interpretation and seems to have moved ahead
>> anyway.  While I believe that the PAPE spec should be approved (and  
>> have
>> voted to do so) I agree with Chris' concerns and the one I raised
>> yesterday about the process being unclear as to if the WG correctly
>> followed it or not.
>>
>
> The bone of contention here seems to be that the PAPE working group
> didn't publish an "Implementer's Draft".
>
> What are the disadvantages of not publishing an implementer's draft,
> other than just that it appears to break policy?
>
> In other words, can we just remove that requirement from the process?
> I'd rather not have a needless extra step if it's not useful... but  
> I'm
> sure it was put in there for a good reason. What was the thinking  
> behind it?
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board





More information about the general mailing list