[OpenID board] Feedback on latest drafts of OpenID IPR Policy and Process

[Dick Hardt]

I agree with Drummond's comments. I have not had time to review the  
documents, and likely won't until late this week.

A suggestion I have around major decisions would be to put them out  
for referendum to members of the OIDF. We can use OpenIDs to identity  
people and easily to electronic voting. This puts the power clearly  
in the hands of the community instead of in the hands of the board or  
spec council. Changes to the policy and final approval of  
specifications and potential approval of WGs could be done this way.  
The spec council and board could take a position and make  
recommendation, but putting the major decisions in the hands of the  
community clearly empowers them and keeps the board and council from  
becoming an old boys network and leaving the membership feeling out  
of the loop.

-- Dick

On 28-Nov-07, at 1:34 AM, Drummond Reed wrote:

> Per the promise the OpenID Foundation board members made to review  
> the latest drafts of the OpenID IPR docs as quickly as possible,  
> here are my comments on the latest IPR Policy and Process docs.
>
>
>
> First, on the IPR Policy doc, my detailed comments are in the  
> attached Word version. The quick summary is:
>
>
>
>             I.1 does not account for any communication or  
> contribution taking place on a wiki. As one of the OASIS Technical  
> Committee chairs who pushed hard for OASIS to finally adopt wiki  
> technology two years ago – and having used it ad nauseum since then  
> – I personally would never want to develop specs without one. I’d  
> like to see spec wikis added to both the Policy and Process docs so  
> they are a peer with Mailing Lists as a communications tool for WGs.
>
>
>
>             I.13 contains the only remaining use (that I could  
> find) of the term “OpenID”, which is not defined. I think this  
> instance should be updated with a defined term.
>
>
>
>             VI.1 does not explicitly mention the “reciprocal  
> requirement opt-in form” that has now been drafted for a  
> Contributor to designate that they requiring a reciprocal promise.  
> It should probably be mentioned.
>
>
>
>
>
> Second, on the Process document (http://openid.net/ipr/ 
> OpenID_IPR_Process_Document-Circulation_Draft_20071115.pdf):
>
>
>
>             2. One could argue that a 5-person Specs Council is too  
> great a concentration of power. I’d opt to have at least 7, and  
> would support it have as many members as the OpenID Board.
>
>
>
>             3.3, 3.8 (and others): Although this doc does refer to  
> a “Webpage”, the same comment above applies – I think a spec wiki  
> (or a branch of a unified spec wiki) should be explicitly  
> provisioned just like a mailing list.
>
>
>
>             3.11 The second to last sentence has a reference error.
>
>
>
>             4.1 This is purely editorial, but I think “Draft”  
> should be capitalized just like “Implementer’s Draft” and “Final  
> Specification”. It only confuses the issue not to have it  
> capitalized (even if you want to intentionally “demote” it’s  
> importance).
>
>
>
>             5.3 IMHO this is the only really sticky paragraph in  
> the document. It raises three issues. First, why does the Board  
> have a final say above and beyond the WG and Specs Council? Is this  
> really necessary? Secondly, why is the OpenID Foundation making a  
> logo available to Contributors and not Implementers? Thirdly, the  
> final paragraph states one grounds for withholding confirmation,  
> but doesn’t state any others, leaving it entirely nebulous for what  
> reasons the Board could veto a spec. It seems that, as with earlier  
> in the spec, all possible reasons should be listed, and the Board  
> must explicitly choose one or more.
>
>
>
> ********
>
> That’s all my comments. I urge all other OIDF board members to post  
> any comments they may have prior to our board meeting this Thursday.
>
>
>
> =Drummond
>
> <OpenID IPR Policy v 0 999  (Circulation Draft 20071115) DSR.doc>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20071128/b5036dfe/attachment-0003.htm>