[OpenID board] [OpenID] PAPE Vote Discussion

[David Recordon]

Read Section 5.1 of the Process:
> An OpenID Specification begins as a “draft” and retains
> this status until approved as an Implementers Draft.  An
> Implementers Draft may be further revised, and any
> revised Implementers Draft is deemed a “draft” until it is
> approved as a new Implementers Draft.  The most recent
> Implementers Draft may be approved as a Final Specification.

This very clearly states that until a WG approves something as an  
Implementers Draft, it is just a "draft".  It then states that "the  
most recent Implementers Draft may be approved as a Final  
Specification."  If we look at PAPE Draft 7, it says nothing other  
than "Draft" on it.

Yes, this all must be clarified but I strongly believe the PAPE WG is  
not correctly following the Process.  I see no reason not to approve  
the PAPE spec, but we either need to correctly follow the Process or  
change it to fit what we want to do.

--David

On Dec 23, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Mike Jones wrote:

> This same patent promise also applies to Final Specifications.  That  
> allows implementers to implement Final Specifications during the 60- 
> day evaluation period, just like they can safely implement  
> Implementer's Drafts during their 45-day evaluation period.
>
> The intent of the procedures was to allow working groups to make the  
> call whether additional input is definitely needed, in which case an  
> Implementer's Draft is appropriate, or whether the working group  
> believes that no additional input is likely needed, in which case a  
> Final Specification is appropriate.  In both cases there are public  
> review periods of 45 or 60 days, respectively, in case the community  
> believes that changes are necessary before an approval vote by the  
> membership.
>
> To the extent that people believe that it's ambiguous in the current  
> procedures whether this choice is in the hands of the Working Group,  
> as David apparently does, we should add clarifying language to the  
> procedures to make this plain to all that this decision is up to the  
> Working Group.
>
>                                Cheers,
>                                -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-bounces at openid.net]  
> On Behalf Of David Recordon
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:57 PM
> To: board at openid.net
> Cc: OpenID List
> Subject: Re: [OpenID] [OpenID board] PAPE Vote Discussion
>
> When you publish an Implementor's Draft, it binds contributors to
> their IP contributions.  A WG can publish an unlimited number of
> drafts and through the draft phase a contributor can drop out and not
> be bound to make a patent promise on drafts they've contributed to.
> Once you get an Implementor's Draft, contributors make a limited
> promise during the period of review (so that people can safely
> implement it for testing) and then at the end of the review period
> unless you've raised an objection, you're bound to make a patent
> promise on that Implementor's Draft even if you later withdraw.  Thus
> if a WG publishes Draft 3 and I drop out afterwards, I have no
> committment around patents.  However, if I stay through the review
> period of Implementor's Draft 4 and don't raise objections, if I then
> drop out I am still committed to what was in Implementor's Draft 4.
>
> This is covered in Section 3 of the IPR Policy:
>> 3. Withdrawal.  A Contributor may withdraw from a Work Group at any
>> time by providing at
>> least seven (7) days' written notice to the OpenID Foundation.  The
>> withdrawing Contributor will,
>> in perpetuity, remain subject to Section V, as applied to copyrights
>> in any Contributions made
>> before the effective date of such withdrawal, and to the limited
>> patent promise in Section VI.1, as
>> applied to any Implementers Drafts or Final Specifications accepted
>> by the Contributor.  A
>> Contributor has "accepted" an Implementers Draft or Final
>> Specification if the Contributor (in
>> accordance with the applicable OpenID Process and after a formal
>> call by an editor of the applicable
>> Specification to recommend adoption of the then-current draft
>> Specification as an Implementers
>> Draft or an applicable Implementers Draft as a Final Specification):
>> (a) expressly voted to
>> recommend adoption (or otherwise recommended adoption, in writing in
>> (or on the record of), any
>> assessment of consensus); (b) failed timely to vote to recommend
>> disapproval of such adoption (or
>> otherwise to disapprove of such adoption, in writing in (or on the
>> record of) any assessment of
>> consensus); or (c) expressly and timely voted to recommend
>> disapproval of such adoption (other
>> otherwise disapproved of such adoption, in writing in (or on the
>> record of) any assessment of
>> consensus), yet failed to provide to the OpenID Foundation notice of
>> intent to withdraw, or notice
>> of an appeal to the OpenID board of directors, within forty-five
>> (45) days after the Specification
>> editor announces either that the Work Group has reached consensus
>> (or has voted) to recommend
>> adoption.  If, however, a Contributor timely requests appeal as
>> provided in the foregoing sentence,
>> then: (y) the time to serve notice of withdrawal (solely for
>> Contributors seeking appeal) will be
>> deemed extended until fourteen (14) days after the OpenID Foundation
>> board of directors
>> announces its decision or recommendation on the appeal; and (z) any
>> effect of the adoption of the
>> applicable Implementers Draft or Final Specification will be deemed
>> stayed until seven (7) days
>> after  any recommendation of the OpenID Foundation board of
>> directors has been voted upon by the
>> OpenID membership as provided in the applicable OpenID Process.
>
> --David
>
> On Dec 23, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Martin Atkins wrote:
>
>> David Recordon wrote:
>>> I'm also unconvinced that the working group (which I'm a part of)
>>> followed the process as outlined for the work leading up to a
>>> membership
>>> vote.  While I tried to discuss this on the PAPE mailing list
>>> yesterday,
>>> Mike had the opposite interpretation and seems to have moved ahead
>>> anyway.  While I believe that the PAPE spec should be approved (and
>>> have
>>> voted to do so) I agree with Chris' concerns and the one I raised
>>> yesterday about the process being unclear as to if the WG correctly
>>> followed it or not.
>>>
>>
>> The bone of contention here seems to be that the PAPE working group
>> didn't publish an "Implementer's Draft".
>>
>> What are the disadvantages of not publishing an implementer's draft,
>> other than just that it appears to break policy?
>>
>> In other words, can we just remove that requirement from the process?
>> I'd rather not have a needless extra step if it's not useful... but
>> I'm
>> sure it was put in there for a good reason. What was the thinking
>> behind it?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>