[OpenID board] Topic for this week's agenda

[Bill Washburn]

I think I know philosophically the meaning of the term 'canonical email address' but I would like to know if it has an alternative or more exacting meaning technically speaking.

thanks,
-bill



----- Original Message ----
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
To: "board at openid.net" <board at openid.net>
Cc: "david at sixapart.com" <david at sixapart.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:39:42 AM
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Topic for this week's agenda

Bill, maybe you can report on our status with respect to have canonical e-mail addresses for all of our members on the board call.  I agree that this is an avenue worth exploring, at least for votes pertaining to working groups.

                                Thanks,
                                -- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Drummond Reed
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:27 AM
To: board at openid.net
Cc: david at sixapart.com
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Topic for this week's agenda

+1. Note that if each voter had one canonical email address associated with
their OpenID of record, email voting would meet these requirements for the
time being.

=Drummond

> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
> Of Nat Sakimura
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:04 AM
> To: board at openid.net
> Cc: david at sixapart.com
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Topic for this week's agenda
>
> So, what is the requirement to the voting app?
>
> I guess,
>
> 1) OpenID Enabled.
> 2) One OpenID is allowed to vote only once.
>
> are the minimum requirement. Perhaps:
>
> 3) One can change the vote before the deadline.
>
> is nice, too, but I am not sure if we really need it.
>
> I do not think annonymous voting is needed for the time being.
>
> =nat
>
> Mike Jones wrote:
> > That's true, but those votes wouldn't qualify under the IPR policy and
> procedures for any of the significant decisions, such as starting a
> working group, approving drafts, etc.  They're also not good enough for
> electing board members.
> >
> > What are you proposing that these votes would be good enough for?
> >
> >                                 -- Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
> Behalf Of David Recordon
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:21 PM
> > To: board at openid.net
> > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Topic for this week's agenda
> >
> > The community can always just have a lightweight version of voting.
> > Someone makes a proposal, others +1 it, boom done.
> >
> > On Mar 10, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Drummond Reed wrote:
> >>
> >>> Scott and Bill:
> >>>
> >>> Per the thread below, the question of when we will be opening up
> >>> new Working
> >>> Groups for specifications is starting to come up. I'm not saying
> >>> there is a
> >>> compelling reason to do that yet for any spec other than PAPE (and
> >>> the
> >>> Trusted Exchange spec that Nat Sakimura and his team have
> >>> suggested), but I
> >>> do think that OIDF needs to take a public stance about:
> >>>
> >>> a) The status of current WGs (to my knowledge it's not published
> >>> anywhere
> >>> what WGs exist or are planned)
> >>>
> >>> b) The process for community members to form a WG.
> >>>
> >>> Can we put a short discussion about this on this week's agenda?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It was my understanding that the blocker for this is that we have no
> >> voting system through which we can hold a vote for the creation of a
> >> WG.
> >>
> >> Obviously that is in hand per our discussions at the last meeting.
> >> However, I guess we could discuss an interim plan to get the first few
> >> WGs up and running quickly. It'd be nice if these could be up and
> >> running by IIW so that the WGs can potentially present to the
> >> community
> >> what they've been up to.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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)
> Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
> XDI.ORG Vice Chair
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20080313/54ee95c8/attachment-0003.htm>