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

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

Well, it doesn't go all the way to the book-end approach we're taking with OWF. This is just a slight simplification of the current process.

The OIDF requires upfront scope approved by the foundation to create a WG. The approval process is taking too long and meanwhile, people are writing specs elsewhere. Those specs are in IPR limbo and needs cleanup if they to eventually enter a WG or have a different IPR policy attached.

So my suggestion is simple. Follow the same IPR policy as you have today for pre-WG work, meaning, write a clear scope and have some form of discussion among those interested in participation. Create a mailing list (or designate an existing one) for that work, and apply the IPR policy *as-if* this is an official WG. Once the WG is ready to publish its first draft, that draft + scope (with possible changes) is submitted for an actual WG creation.

If a WG is created, the work continues and the IPR license is already in place. If the WG is not created, the parties involved can continue as they choose.

All I am really suggesting is to move the WG approval to after the first draft, but other than that, keep everything else the same.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
> Behalf Of David Recordon
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:52 AM
> To: board at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] The Specs Council and Process (WAS: Re:
> Executive Committee meeting 12/18/2008 ...)
>
> Yeah, I don't think IPR per se is the roadblock, but the process that
> we've created chosen to ensure that IPR isn't an issue is.  Mart is
> however correct that most of the current working group proposals are
> more or less taking a spec draft that is already written, turning it
> into a WG, and then having the non-asserts happen at the end
> implicitly with the review periods by the WG members versus explicitly
> as was done by OpenID 2.0 and OAuth 1.0.
>
> So, I think that Mart, Eran, and Dick are all correct in what they've
> said in this thread.
>
> Eran, I'm intrigued by your pre-WG idea.  How would you see it
> actually work?  Sounds a bit like what we've been talking about for
> the Open Web Foundation.
>
> --David
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
> >
> > On 17-Dec-08, at 11:28 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
> >
> >> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> >>> I take it you didn't have to personally "figure out the IPR
> >>> afterwards"...
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's actually my point. There are lots of folks for whom the IPR
> >> stuff
> >> isn't a concern for one reason or another. Those folks shouldn't be
> >> prevented from getting on with stuff while those who *do* care about
> >> IPR
> >> are figuring it out.
> >>
> >> That's exactly what happened with OpenID 2.0. Lots of folks had it
> >> implemented long before the IPR was done.
> >>
> >> If I author a spec then I'm quite happy to sign an IPR non-assert
> >> where
> >> necessary, but the current process is far heavier than that and
> isn't
> >> really helping anyone because folks are just writing and
> implementing
> >> specs outside of the IPR framework because the IPR framework stops
> >> them
> >> actually getting any work done.
> >
> > It is MUCH more effort to figure out the IPR afterwards.
> >
> > IPR is NOT the roadblock in creating WGs. As David mentions, the
> > process is currently far to heavy. We need to make it simpler and
> > easily understood.
> >
> > -- Dick
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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