[OIDFSC] Refreshing the OpenID specs council
Breno de Medeiros
breno at google.com
Tue May 25 16:57:23 UTC 2010
For the record, Dirk Balfanz is also a spec editor for the hybrid
extension (as I am myself), so he is eligible by these criteria.
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:42, David Recordon <recordond at gmail.com> wrote:
> Given that the UX Extension was never finalized, I think everyone is on a
> level playing field.
> The Specs Council is made up of two people appointed by the Board and five
> by the "Eligible Editors". The Editors are supposed to select among
> themselves, but can appoint other appropriate people as well.
> I'd recommend adding Nat and Joseph given that the Hybrid extension has had
> more deployment than UX and his experience editing other specifications such
> as Portable Contacts.
> --David
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> At this point, we have affirmative responses from all but Brad and Josh.
>> I propose that we now invite Breno and Nat to join the council to replace
>> Brad and Josh.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that Dirk, Joseph, and John all bring strong qualifications, but
>> to my knowledge, none have served as OpenID specification editors, whereas
>> Breno and Nat have.
>>
>>
>>
>> Are there any objections to now inviting them to join?
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> From: openid-specs-council-bounces at lists.openid.net
>> [mailto:openid-specs-council-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Allen
>> Tom
>> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 6:05 PM
>> To: David Recordon; Mike Jones
>> Cc: Johnny Bufu; Brad Fitzpatrick; openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net;
>> Josh Hoyt; Dick Hardt
>> Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] Refreshing the OpenID specs council
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I’d like to remain active on the specs council.
>>
>> In addition to Breno and Nat, I also think that Dirk Balfanz, Joseph
>> Smarr, and John Bradley would also be really good additions.
>>
>> Allen
>>
>>
>> On 5/23/10 5:49 PM, "David Recordon" <recordond at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I will remain active.
>>
>> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/2008-June/002989.html> , 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 <http://yahoo-inc.com>
>> - Brad Fitzpatrick brad at danga.com <http://danga.com>
>> - David Recordon recordond at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>> - Johnny Bufu johnny.bufu at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>> - Josh Hoyt josh at janrain.com <http://janrain.com>
>> - Dick Hardt dick.hardt at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>> - Mike Jones michael.jones at microsoft.com <http://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
>> <http://openid.net/wordpress-content/uploads/2010/01/OpenID_Process_Document_December_2009_Final_Approved.pdf>
>> :
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
--Breno
+1 (650) 214-1007 desk
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
MTV-41-3 : 383-A
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)
More information about the specs-council
mailing list