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

Thu Dec 18 00:10:28 UTC 2008

On 17-Dec-08, at 2:29 PM, David Recordon wrote:

> Or ideally the group would emerge with a draft of a spec along with
> some form of consensus around it and thus be easier to write and have
> a better informed scope statement.
>
> If we were to do this, what would it look like?
>
> 1) Some group of people decide they want to tackle a problem.  They
> email the specs@ mailing list with some sort of description of what
> they want to do and we set them up with a mailing list like drafting-
> <name>@openid.net.  (I'd also have no problem in using Google Groups
> for these since it's less maintenance and makes it easier for those
> leading the work to manage.)

I'm fine with Google groups -- but we need to enforce membership and  
have IPR in place to participate

>
> 2) Group is created and it tries to stay away from calling their
> document "OpenID <foo>" for the time being.

how about OpenID-Proposal-<foo>

>
> 3) To post to the list, you must agree to the existing IPR policy so
> everything around withdrawal and review periods of later stage drafts
> remain the same.

Is that an email or a executed form faxed in?

The challenge for some people will be that they do not want what they  
consider unrelated IPR to be brought into a WG -- and since the scope  
is not really defined, they need to be able to opt out after scope is  
defined. I forget if that is in the IPR statements now.

>
> 4) At some point, one or more drafts in, the group decides to
> formalize their WG.
> 5) They write a charter/scope to submit along with their draft and an
> accurate list of authors/contributors.
> 6) Specs Council / membership approves their WG or decides that the
> draft they've produced really doesn't fit into OpenID and works with
> the group on either how to change that (e.g. more reuse) or helps them
> move to another organization to finish their work.

currently we require a membership vote to approve a WG do we not?

>
> 7) They use the rest of the process to publish an Implementor's Draft
> and then in the end a Final Draft.

and then a vote by the membership

>
>
> This thus makes it much easier to get started and far more concrete
> when the specs council is looking to recommend if work becomes a
> working group or not.
>
> It doesn't fix the 4 months to finalize a spec, but I guess we tackle
> that problem as groups start to hit it.  (Which PAPE is already
> starting to.)
>
> --David
>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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