[OpenID board] Trademark problem?

[Dick Hardt]

Sorry if my last email was confusing. Let me restate:

That an issue has come up should be public. The results of resolving  
should be public.

Resolving problems often should be private.

Examples of discussions that should be private:

+ Executive Director candidates and their status while recruiting and  
negotiating with them. Often people are employed somewhere else, so  
public disclosure is inappropriate.

+ Recruitment of new corporate board members. Companies will usually  
want to (or for compliance, may have to) control disclosure of joining  
the OpenID Foundation. It may be part of a larger strategy that they  
want to control the disclosure of.

Examples of public:

+ OIDF is looking for a new ED, a new ED has been hired

+ OIDF is recruiting additional corp board members, a new corp. board  
member has joined (but not to be disclosed until they are ok with it)

-- Dick

On 2-Dec-08, at 12:25 PM, Chris Messina wrote:

> This sounds contradicting -- Dick, are you saying that this  
> discussion should be made public so the community it aware of it, or  
> made private because "It is often inappropriate and counter  
> productive in negotiations for your strategy and discussions to be  
> public."
>
> Which side are you advocating for?
>
> Frankly I think the private list should be used as a last resort, if  
> not banished altogether.
>
> I'm fed up with private back-door conversations with the "open" ID  
> foundation.
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
> Agree the community should be aware of issues and results.
>
> It is often inappropriate and counter productive in negotiations for  
> your strategy and discussions to be public.
>
> -- Dick
>
> On 2-Dec-08, at 11:27 AM, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
>
>> Open is King! Why hide such an important subject? It's certainly  
>> something the community and others should know about and to which  
>> results we'd come eventually!
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Signer: 	Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd.
>> Jabber: 	startcom at startcom.org
>> Blog: 	Join the Revolution!
>> Phone: 	+1.213.341.0390
>>
>> On 12/02/2008 07:27 PM, DeWitt Clinton:
>>>
>>> Definitely sounds like a problem.  We should discuss legal matters  
>>> off the public list, however.
>>>
>>> Off topic, do Marketwatch URL's really contain unencoded '{' and  
>>> '}' characters?  Someone should really point them to RFCs 1738 and  
>>> 2396.
>>>
>>> -DeWitt
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Johannes Ernst <jernst at netmesh.us>  
>>> wrote:
>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/OpenQ-Announces-Release-Breakthrough-Solutions/story.aspx?guid= 
>>> {3E32B03F-4DDD-4AC3-83F2-D02A46D39176}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Johannes Ernst
>>> NetMesh Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  http://netmesh.info/jernst
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Chris Messina
> Citizen-Participant &
>  Open Technology Advocate-at-Large
> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
> This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081202/57bb8724/attachment-0002.htm>