[OpenID board] Please process the WG proposals on the table (WAS The Specs Council and Process)

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Thu Dec 18 04:22:50 UTC 2008


I have to agree with Nat.

The real problem here, as I see it, is that the current specs council members appear to be reluctant to actually fulfill their duties for timely review of specification proposals.

David or Scott, can you please create the (publicly readable) specs-council at openid.net<mailto:specs-council at openid.net> list so we can get on with this discussion and unblock the process?

If we're going to change the process at all, in my view, it would be to make it clear that if the specs council hasn't acted within N days of a formal proposal, that the proposal can proceed to a membership vote without the specs council having rendered an opinion.  I would suggest that the new board take up a proposal along those lines.

The specs council held up creation of the PAPE working group by multiple months earlier this year.  It's doing the same thing with the current proposals.  As I see it, the specs council members should either commit to timely fulfillment of their duties, or resign, allowing members to be appointed who will respond in a timely fashion.

The current specs council members are listed at http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID_Foundation/SC and are Johnny Bufu, Brad Fitzpatrick, Dick Hardt, Josh Hoyt, David Recordon, Allen Tom, and myself.

                                                                Thanks,
                                                                -- Mike

From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:46 PM
To: david at sixapart.com; OpenID Specs Mailing List; Dick Hardt; Allen Tom; Josh Hoyt
Cc: board at openid.net
Subject: [OpenID board] Please process the WG proposals on the table (WAS The Specs Council and Process)

Well. Very good discussion. I am glad that I started the original thread.

At the same time, I would like the spec council to issue overdue recommendations, especially for Contract Exchange. It has been sitting there for a long time now. (By now, the actual works should have started.)

As I believe, though the scope may seems a bit wide, the WG scope being wider than what it really needs to is not a bad thing. WG can always narrow the scope without any IPR consideration, but it is virtually impossible to widen the scope afterwards.

=nat
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20081217/b5835187/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the specs mailing list