[OIDFSC] Refreshing the OpenID specs council

[Dick Hardt]

Yes, I will remain active on the specs council.

On 2010-05-23, at 1:04 PM, Mike Jones wrote:

> As several OpenID working groups are being proposed, it would be good to ensure that the OpenID specifications council is populated with people who are currently active in specification development and have the appropriate expertise.  Per this note, the council currently consists of these people, who are subscribed to the openid-specs-council list with these addresses:
>   - Allen Tom  atom at yahoo-inc.com
>   - Brad Fitzpatrick  brad at danga.com
>   - David Recordon  recordond at gmail.com
>   - Johnny Bufu  johnny.bufu at gmail.com
>   - Josh Hoyt  josh at janrain.com
>   - Dick Hardt  dick.hardt at gmail.com
>   - Mike Jones  michael.jones at microsoft.com
>  
> Can each of you who plan to remain active on the specifications council PLEASE RESPOND affirmatively to this note in the next few days?  Otherwise, we should offer the positions to other spec editors who will be active.  Nat Sakimura is certainly one person who comes to mind, as editor of the CX and Artifact Binding specifications, and also Breno de Medeiros, who is an editor for the User Interface Extension.
>  
> To update your subscription to the openid-specs-council list, go to http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-council.
>  
>                                                             Thanks,
>                                                             -- Mike
>  
> As a reminder of the role of the specifications council, here are some of the relevant passages from the OpenID Process document:
>  
> 1.4  “Editor(s)” means, for a particular Specification to be developed by a particular WG, the individual Contributor(s) selected to coordinate development of, and transcription of the work of the WG for, such Specification, as well as (together with any other Editors for that WG) to administer WG operation.
> 
> 1.5  “Eligible Editors” means, as determined on a given date, all Editors from current WGs and all other persons who: (a) were WG Editors at any time in the two years before such date; (b) are alive and have provided and maintained updated contact information with the OpenID Foundation; and (c) elect to participate in selection of the Specifications Council after at least seven days’ email notice.
> 
> 1.6  “Specifications Council” means a group comprised of: (a) two representatives selected by the Board; and (b) five representatives selected by the Eligible Editors.  The Board may select from among the current Board members (or other appropriate persons, as determined by the Board), and the Eligible Editors may select from among themselves (or other appropriate persons, as the Eligible Editors determine).
> 
>  
> 2  Specifications Council.  The initial Specifications Council, as of the date these Processes are adopted, will be comprised of two persons selected by the Board and five persons selected by the then-current OpenID Authentication 2.0 Specification Editors.  The members of the Specifications Council will serve for two year terms (although one of the initial members selected by the Board and two of the initial members selected by the Editors of the OpenID Authentication 2.0 Specification will serve for only a one year term – as selected by consensus of the Specifications Council – so that Specifications Council membership terms may be staggered).  There are no “term limits” for Specifications Council membership, and the Board or Eligible Editors, as applicable, may re-select the same persons to serve for more than one term (consecutive or otherwise). In the event that a Specifications Council member failed to participate in the discussion of two consecutive working group proposals, the member will be deemed to have resigned, and new specifications council members who are committed to participating in the process will be appointed to replace the member.
> 
>  
> 4.2  Review.  The Specifications Council will review each proposal within 15 days after receipt and promptly provide notice to specs at openid.net of its recommendation to either accept or reject it, together with a brief statement of the rationale for its recommendation (including any findings or opinions by the Specifications Council regarding the criteria for rejection in the following clauses (a)-(d). If a proposal is rejected, it may be modified and resubmitted.  The reasons for rejection will be limited to:
> 
> (a)    an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with §4.1);
> 
> (b)    a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID community’s purpose;
> 
> (c)     a determination that the proposed WG does not have sufficient support to succeed or to deliver proposed deliverables within projected completion dates; or
> 
> (d)    a  determination that the proposal is likely to cause legal liability for the OIDF or others.
> 
> If no recommendation was issued within 15 days after receipt, the Proposal is deemed to be accepted.
> 
> When the Specifications Council rejects the proposal, the Proposers may submit the Proposal to a vote of the OIDF membership, in accordance with the voting procedures in §3. When the vote passes, the proposal is deemed to be accepted.  
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20100523/56638356/attachment-0001.html>