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

[Scott Kveton]

For those that didn't see it, here is a note from Mike Jones in
response to the notes from Dick and I:

- Scott

(I had to purge the pending queue via command-line so Mike's note
didn't make it through originally)


> From: legal-bounces at openid.net [mailto:legal-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
> Of Mike Jones
>  Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:25 AM
>  To: Bill Washburn; Dick Hardt; board at openid.net
>  Cc: David Daggett; David Daggett (Preston Gates & Ellis); legal at openid.net;
> Bill Washburn
>
>  Subject: Re: [legal] [OpenID board] Feedback on latest drafts of OpenIDIPR
> Policy and Process
>
>
>
> I just spoke with Drummond on the phone.  He's suggesting two very
> reasonable process changes:
>
>   - Recognize contributions posted to official working group web sites and
> wikis
>
>   - Possibly increase the size of the specs council from 5 to 7
>
>
>
> He's also interested in being more explicit about the reasons that the board
> could decide not to approve things.
>
>
>
> If the board agrees with those changes, I'm sure that the IPR policy working
> group members would also concur.  Thanks for the detailed read, Drummond!
>
>
>
> I also appreciate Bill's observation below that we're now talking about only
> process changes, not changes to the IPR policy itself.
>
>
>
>                                                 Cheers,
>
>                                                 -- Mike
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
>
>
> From: legal-bounces at openid.net [mailto:legal-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
> Of Bill Washburn
>  Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:09 AM
>  To: Dick Hardt; board at openid.net
>
>  Cc: legal at openid.net; Bill Washburn
>
>  Subject: Re: [legal] [OpenID board] Feedback on latest drafts of OpenID IPR
> Policy and Process
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Scott, Dick,
>
>  It seems to me this is not being seen / interpreted in exactly the same way
> by both of you.  I take the suggestion from Dick as a proposal for how to
> ensure that major decisions re Working Groups and such are based on
> community input and that therefore such a mechanism ought to be incorporated
> into the procedures of the IPR process document.
>
>  This proposal that you, Scott, describe as "fantastic" is something about
> which you are both in strong agreement.  So far, so good, right?
>
>  I think the confusion is that I don't read this suggestion as a change in
> the procedure for how we come to closure on the IPR docs right now.  After
> all, as of today and until we complete this IPR effort there are in
> actuality no members of the OIDF who could vote in the first place.  I take
> Dick's proposal as a solid suggestion for how to ensure the strong role of
> the OpenID community in the major decisions regarding IPR process and not at
> all about how we complete this effort to establish the OpenID IPR policy
> regime.
>
>  cheers,
>  -bill
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>  From: Dick Hardt <dick at sxip.com>
>  To: board at openid.net
>  Cc: legal at openid.net; Bill Washburn <bill at oidf.org>
>  Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:36:10 AM
>  Subject: Re: [legal] [OpenID board] Feedback on latest drafts of OpenID IPR
> Policy and Process
>
>
>  On 28-Nov-07, at 7:19 AM, Scott Kveton wrote:
>
>  >>  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.
>  >
>  > I think this is a fantastic idea in the long-term but doesn't fit well
>  > with the goals we've set out as a board to try and adopt the IPR (or
>  > get as close as possible) by IIW.
>
>  Is the goal to rubber stamp the IPR (primarily driven by large
>  vendors) or to create an IPR that protects and empowers the
>  community, which we as a board represent?
>
>  I don't think there is a second chance to do the IPR.
>
>  -- Dick
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  legal mailing list
>  legal at openid.net
>  http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/legal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>