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

Thu Dec 18 17:10:44 UTC 2008

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:

> David:
>
> 1) Yes, we need to improve the process
>
> 2) We need to work with the current process until we have it improved.
>
> 3) Please create the specs-council list so that we can archive our
> conversations and we can approve the outstanding WG. The holidays are
> almost upon us!

I think list is already done. specs-council at openid.net .
Please zoom ahead! [?]

>
> -- Dick
>
> On 17-Dec-08, at 9:22 AM, David Recordon wrote:
>
> > Yeah, this is something we're working on taking care of.  Right now
> > the challenge is:
> >  - There are a few proposals for working groups with very little
> > consensus among the community around any of them
> >  - Most of the working group proposals are still drafts
> >  - Mike Jones has a thread going with other specs council members
> > about how we need to respond to these proposals
> >  - The specs council does not currently have a mailing list and there
> > is a struggle between creating another low traffic list versus using
> > an existing list.  I've been asked to make a list, which I can do,
> > though there is little to no consensus that we should do so
> >
> > I then personally have a larger struggle with the process in place.  I
> > strongly believe that it does not do good for OpenID to have it pushed
> > in divergent technical directions (we've seen what happened with 2.0
> > as it tried to please everyone) though feel that the community has
> > very little power to prevent that.  While I could drive toward
> > consensus on the specs@ mailing list that a proposal still needs
> > changes to fit along with the direction of OpenID, technically the
> > specs council would be hard pressed to use that as a reason to not
> > approve a working group.
> >
> > The specs council is given a list of four reasons that it can not
> > approve a new working group.  To take a lack of consensus on the
> > specs@ mailing list as input, it would have to decide  either "that
> > the proposal contravenes the OpenID community's purpose" (where the
> > Foundation says "OpenID is a set of freely available enabling
> > technologies that facilitate individuals to use their identity and
> > profile from one web resource to access many others in a
> > decentralized, secure, and easy fashion built upon existing web
> > technologies.") or "that the proposed WG does not have sufficient
> > support to succeed or to deliver proposed deliverables within
> > projected completion dates."  While significant part of the technical
> > community might disagree with a working group proposal, I don't see
> > there being a way (as a member of the specs council) to in good faith
> > decide that it contravenes the purpose or except in extremely grave
> > cases that it would not succeed.
> >
> > From there the proposal goes to a vote of the membership which is
> > structured in such a way as to pass with a quorum requirement of 20%
> > of the membership or 20 members, whichever is greater, and a simple
> > majority vote.
> >
> > Beyond all of that, the quickest that a working group can be formed is
> > no more than 15 days of review by the specs council (which we're
> > failing at right now), plus a 14 day notice period of the membership
> > vote, plus a 7 day voting period.  This thus means that by our current
> > process it takes approximately a month for new work to begin.
> >
> > From there, the fastest that a working group could produce a final
> > specification is theoretically 120 days.  The IPR Process requires a
> > review period of at least 60 days (which PAPE is going through right
> > now) for a final specification.  From there, assuming that no one
> > objects around IPR or the board for legal liability, a 45 day review
> > period for the membership of the Foundation is started which results
> > in a 14 day voting period to approval the specification and officially
> > call it "OpenID <something>".  This thus means that from the day the
> > working group feels they have their final draft, it will take 119 days
> > (~4 months) for the specification to go through all of the needed IPR
> > review steps.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --David
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2008, at 8:09 AM, Scott Kveton wrote:
> >
> >>> It might not be the board issue, but there are several WG proosals
> >>> sitting there. According to the OpenID process, spec comittee needs
> >>> issue a recomendatiom within two weeks so that the working group
> >>> creation voting can take place.
> >>
> >> Is this something for the specifications council?:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID_Foundation/SC
> >>
> >> I believe this is out of scope for the Exec. Committee.
> >>
> >> - Scott
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> =nat at TOKYO via iPhone
> >>>
> >>> On 2008/12/18, at 0:41, "Scott Kveton" <scott at kveton.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Unless anyone has anything particularly pressing to discuss, I'd
> >>>> like
> >>>> to cancel the Executive Committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow at
> >>>> 11am PST.
> >>>>
> >>>> If there is something you'd like to discuss and still feel like we
> >>>> need a meeting, by all means, let me know and we can rethink.
> >>>>
> >>>> FYI,
> >>>>
> >>>> - Scott
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
>

-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20081219/f3dd143c/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 96 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20081219/f3dd143c/attachment-0002.gif>