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

[Dick Hardt]

Sounds like a lighter way of getting a WG started is what is needed so  
that people can get together to discuss the problem without having to  
write up a scope document -- since the scope often shifts as people  
get together and talk about it.

So how about we add an earlier stage to the WG -- the formation stage  
-- at the end of that stage there may or may not be a scope that has  
been created. If there is a scope document, it is put up for approval  
per the current process. Once approved, the WG is in the specification  
stage.

-- Dick

On 17-Dec-08, at 12:23 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board