[legal] Feedback on OpenID IPR Policy and Process

David Recordon drecordon at sixapart.com
Fri Oct 26 23:36:57 UTC 2007

Some thoughts inline...

On Oct 26, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> For instance, "participation in OpenID" should probably become  
> "participation in the OpenID Specification Development Process".   
> And I suspect that you're right that should look for other  
> unqualified uses of the term "OpenID" and qualify them.
Yes, anywhere which just says "OpenID" is most likely an oversight.

> Does anyone want to suggest any clarifying text around Dick's  
> example of whether a blog post from a contributor about a spec is a  
> contribution?  I suspect that it should be unless it is explicitly  
> called out as not being a contribution.  Or should the default be  
> the other way around, so that contributions are defined as stuff  
> sent to the spec list plus other materials explicitly contributed  
> via other channels?
I'd think keeping it to the mailing list will help with everything  
being in one place and it being clear as to what you're contributing  
under the IPR policy and what you're not.  Using the classic example  
of the group, if someone from Yahoo! is a contributor to the  
authentication spec, they then go blog about search, that blog entry  
on search should not be considered a contribution to the  
authentication spec.

> I agree with you that if we are borrowing definitions from the  
> Bylaws we should be aware that we are doing this and consider  
> moving them into the primary documents, as you suggest.  Group,  
> what terms are we incorporating from the Bylaws by reference?
I'm happy either putting them into the definitions section or  
referencing the definitions via the Foundation's bylaws.

>  Some of the "Editor" and "Specifications Council" comments you'd  
> made were already brought up by others are and being addressed.   
> For instance, it seemed overly heavy-handed to allow the  
> specifications counsel to do things like remove editors.  The specs  
> council should communicate and coordinate, not dictate or have  
> official powers.
Agreed, generally...see below.

> The rationale for supermajority is as a proxy for consensus, which  
> is actually the desired outcome.
Yes, the process is based on consensus.  All the voting rules only  
apply if consensus is unreachable.

> Once again, I agree with Dick that the specifications council would  
> be better limited to an advisory role, not a final-arbiter role.   
> Input is good, but introducing a second layer of bureaucracy  
> between submission of a WP proposal and its approval by the board  
> seems unnecessary.
One of the goals with having an intermediary body was to remove power  
from the Foundation's board around specification development.  Rather  
by placing these powers in the council, which is made up of past  
editors (and authors should be added), then it will be a better proxy  
for the specification development community.  This also decouples  
these decisions from Foundation membership as you need to be a member  
of the Foundation to be on the board.  This also mimics much of what  
happens today where past authors and editors generally work to move  
the specs process forward.

> The consensus language I believe was lifted wholesale from the W3C,  
> for better or worse.  It's probably better than calling for votes  
> and letting slim majorities rule, in any event.
Yes, I believe it was taken directly from the W3C.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-legal/attachments/20071026/846b8e08/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the legal mailing list