[OpenID board] pay-to-play an issue?

[Bill Washburn]

A few points (in the form of questions):

First, isn't it more or less highly probable that the vast majority of "OpenID community members" assume that, since the OIDF board members constitute the primary innovators/champions/builders of OpenID, then the OIDF board is also the group that is best suited (has commitment, vision, depth) to manage/coordinate all the important strategic matters related to the advancement of OpenID in the marketplace?

Second, if OIDF doesn't take on its shoulders the work of managing/coordinating all the important issues, then won't it leave a gap in effort to grow OpenID? which in turn will necessitate formation of another OpenID advocacy organization?

Third, since there are clearly more issues to address than marketing, isn't it simply more efficient, effective, and expeditious to craft the formation of OIDF and its bylaws so that it is possible to have one "Open ID community guided" organization dealing with the array of issues requiring attention?

cheers,
-bill


Yes, I think Scott hit the nail on the head.  If the Foundation is
purely a marketing organization then I see no problems with any sort of
pay-to-play type model.  If it manages anything community related
(domains, trademark, IP) then I unequivocally feel any sort of
pay-to-play model is the incorrect choice.

I think the question before us is if we can balance these two functions.
Could the organization at the top be around the community and thus a
merit based governing model and then have a working group around
marketing with its own chair and council which is based partially upon
who has contributed what?  Another model would be having some sort of
financial oversight committee made up of those that donated to the
Foundation.

--David 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20070405/b2fa7c83/attachment-0003.htm>