[OpenID board] The Specs Council and Process (WAS: Re: Executive Committee meeting 12/18/2008 ...)

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

I take it you didn't have to personally "figure out the IPR afterwards"...

OAuth took 8 months to get the IRP done. OpenID 2.0 involved a lot of work. We need to fix the process. There is nothing wrong with approving WGs fast and dissolving them if they are no longer active/needed.

What we might want to consider is a pre-WG stage where all the IPR rules apply but it is not yet an official WG until after the publication of the first draft - so it gives people a place and some time to work out the feasibility of their work. But for IPR purposes, *IF* the work is turned into a WG, all the contributions made prior are still in.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
> Behalf Of Martin Atkins
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:11 AM
> To: board at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] The Specs Council and Process (WAS: Re:
> Executive Committee meeting 12/18/2008 ...)
>
> David Recordon wrote:
> >
> > I know that I was intimately involved in creating this process but
> the
> > more that I see it in practice, the more that I know we must change
> it
> > and understand why new innovative work like the OpenID and OAuth
> > Hybrid occurs outside the purview of the OpenID Foundation.  (And
> yes,
> > I understand how I'm being a bit hypocritical by saying that getting
> > started should be easier yet only for the work that a core group
> feels
> > fits into what OpenID is which can be done in many different ways.)
> >
> > I guess my point is that we need to make it much easier to get
> > started, though make sure it is hard for something to be called
> > "OpenID" when it clearly doesn't use existing OpenID technology or
> > does something wildly different.  Right now our process is loaded up
> > at the start and at the end, which means that people are going and
> > starting elsewhere.
> >
>
> Almost all of the proposed working groups are really just posted as a
> formality because the specs are already being drafted by folks outside
> of the working group framework.
>
> None of the specs that we've actually managed to get published were
> started under the OIDF "working group" regime, and as far as I can tell
> none have actually been successfully completed under it.
>
> Let's just write the specs and figure out the IPR afterwards. This
> working group approval bullshit isn't productive.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board