[OpenID board] Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote
David Recordon
david at sixapart.com
Wed Feb 4 05:56:18 UTC 2009
How about we include these two changes, but not the third that I
proposed, given that the first ties into the creation of new working
groups and the second seems like an oversight rather than anything else.
1) Drastically shortening or removing the notification period of a
membership vote to create a new Working Group once the Specs Council
has reccomended it.
2) Clarifying that a Working Group must produce an Implementor's Draft
before a Final Draft given the IPR implications of not doing so.
--David
On Feb 3, 2009, at 8:43 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> Thinking about it, I'd rather that if we're making several sets of
> unrelated changes to the IPR documents, that the members get to vote
> on them independently, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it big ball of
> changes. As such, I'd advocate Nat producing a change-tracked Word
> doc from the current process docs that can be voted on separately
> from other, less fully baked, changes that may come in the future.
>
> -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
> Behalf Of Chris Messina
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:38 PM
> To: david at sixapart.com; board at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Spec Process Improvement Motions for
> Membership Vote
>
> Grumble. Sounds complicated.
>
> If these changes could be made in a fairly straight-forward, up-down
> vote, then yeah, I'd advocate for the incremental, piece-meal
> approach.
>
> Given all that's involved (and I'm wondering if we'll ever begin that
> process unless someone is specifically assigned those tasks that you
> described, David), it does seem like an all-at-once approach is
> somewhat more prudent.
>
> I guess the bylaws are in place to prevent arbitrary or short-sighted
> changes, but clearly they do impede certain kinds of progress!
>
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:40 AM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com>
> wrote:
>> I see the downside is that making any chage to the IPR docs is not
>> a normal
>> Membership vote as we've done in the past. Rather, any changes to
>> the IPR
>> Docs require a 21 day notice period, multiple electronic notices to
>> the
>> "legal" contacts provided on a myriad of paper and electronic forms
>> we've
>> collected, a blog post at the beginning of the 21 day period, the
>> ability
>> for a Member to denote a proxy voter (e.g. allow me to let Six
>> Apart's
>> lawyer login and vote under the Six Apart membership for this vote
>> only via
>> our software), and either a subermajority vote of 60% of our
>> Membership with
>> a majority of the Board or a supermajority of 30% of our Membership
>> with a
>> supermajority of the Board.
>> So, given that before we can hold this vote we need to (beyond
>> drafting the
>> notices and blog post):
>> 1) Find all of the legal contacts that we've been provided over the
>> past
>> year and a half
>> 2) Modify our voting software to allow a Member to denote a proxy
>> voter for
>> this one vote
>> This should all happen before the 21 day notice period because if
>> on the
>> 22nd day we're not ready to vote, we'll have to issue a new notice
>> period
>> and start over again.
>> --David
>> On Feb 2, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Brian Kissel wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> While the comprehensive approach might be compelling, wouldn't it
>> be better
>> to make incremental progress on the 4 motions that Nat has already
>> submitted
>> that have been approved by the board. The risk here is that we delay
>> straightforward changes by tying them with ones that are still being
>> developed. Shouldn't the members get to make an up-down vote on
>> independent
>> sets of changes independently, rather than having to wait for other
>> possible
>> changes. What is the downside to pursuing these sequentially?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brian
>> ==============
>> Brian Kissel
>> Cell: 503.866.4424
>> Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>>
>> From: David Recordon [mailto:david at sixapart.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 1:50 PM
>> To: Brian Kissel
>> Cc: Nat Sakimura; board at openid.net
>> Subject: Re: Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote
>>
>> +board at openid.net
>>
>> I think the immediate next step is having a lawyer involved (as
>> needed) to
>> make the appropriate changes to the IPR Process document before the
>> 21 day
>> period can commence. As I said in a previous email, considering
>> how much
>> effort is designed into changing the IPR Policy or Process, I think
>> it is
>> worthwhile to do this once rather than multiple times this year.
>> The two
>> items which I know are currently being discussed which I would like
>> to see
>> rolled into this vote are:
>> 1) Drastically shortening or removing the notification period of a
>> membership vote to create a new Working Group once the Specs
>> Council has
>> reccomended it.
>> 2) Clarifying if a Working Group must produce an Implementor's
>> Draft before
>> a Final Draft given the IPR implications of not doing so.
>> 3) Resolving and adding language to allow organizations like
>> MySpace AOL and
>> Plaxo - who have corporate parents - to contribute to Working Groups.
>>
>> I would thus ask that the Board re-charter an IPR Committee to
>> resolve these
>> issues as expeditiously as possible thus resulting in *one*
>> membership vote
>> to ideally approve all of these changes versus a series of votes
>> over the
>> course of the year. All three of these additional items are
>> changes that
>> have been discussed and many have proposals on the table.
>>
>> --David
>>
>> ----- "Brian Kissel" <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Guys, are we clear on next steps to move Nat's 4 proposals on for a
>> full
>> membership vote and are those activities underway? What is the ETA
>> for
>> being able to start the 21 day notification process?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>> Brian
>> ==============
>> Brian Kissel
>> Cell: 503.866.4424
>> Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>>>
>> From: Brian Kissel
>>> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:46 AM
>>> To: 'david at sixapart.com'
>>> Cc: board at openid.net
>>> Subject: Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote
>>
>> Not following you David. I thought your recommendation was that
>> the exact
>> wording had to be done before beginning the 21 day notification, so
>> that was
>> what I was asking Nat to provide when ready. I'm also working with
>> Refresh
>> Media to see if we have an official mailing list for all members we
>> can use
>> per the email from Mike Jones below. I'm sure Nat would love to
>> work with
>> you for what goes on the OIDF homepage, Nat? Just trying to keep
>> this
>> process moving per section 3.4 and the dialog below.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>> Brian
>> ==============
>> Brian Kissel
>> Cell: 503.866.4424
>> Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>>>
>> From: David Recordon [mailto:david at sixapart.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:39 AM
>>> To: Brian Kissel
>>> Cc: board at openid.net
>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
>>> results are in
>>
>> I take it that you're ignoring what I said and not even
>> acknowledging it
>> with a direct response?
>>
>> As to emailing the members, we need to email legal contacts as well
>> if the
>> members provided them which I'm unsure how the membership tool
>> currently captures. We do however have legal contacts for many of
>> the
>> companies that signed contribution agreements for working groups
>> which the
>> ones I know of can be found
>> in http://openid.net/ipr/Non-Assertion-Agreement/executed/.
>>
>> I'm also happy to help draft/edit this blog post given that it is
>> valuable
>> to tie into a larger narrative about how the IPR work we did has
>> since
>> influenced other communities in a major way.
>>
>> --David
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Brian Kissel wrote:
>>
>> Nat, please let me know when you have the wording completed so we
>> can post
>> on the OIDF homepage and send out an email to all OIDF members for
>> the
>> notification period before the vote.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>> Brian
>> ==============
>> Brian Kissel
>> Cell: 503.866.4424
>> Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>>>
>> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
>> Behalf
>> Of David Recordon
>>> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 1:05 AM
>>> To: board at openid.net
>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
>>> results are in
>>
>> I believe that Mike was objecting to starting the 21 day clock
>> without
>> actual text changes in the document. I would advise that this work
>> be
>> delegated to the IPR Committee (if we even still have one) and for
>> them to
>> come back to the board once there is actual blessed text to review.
>>
>> I still believe that given a 21 day review period coupled with the
>> high
>> degree of notifications and voting required to change the IPR
>> Policy and
>> Process that taking an extra few days to round up any other changes
>> is truly
>> the best path forward. We know this Process is broken as we've
>> tried to use
>> it a few times and we have groups like "Step2" creating new work
>> outside of
>> the OpenID Foundation because our Process is too complex and
>> difficult to
>> navigate. Let's fix that instead of trying to ignore the entire
>> set of
>> problems for expediency especially when the Specs Council is now
>> actually
>> starting to work again.
>>
>> --David
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Brian Kissel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry if I wasn't clear, I only meant to start the 21 day clock for
>> the 4
>> spec process improvement motions that Nat made that have already been
>> approved by the board. The exact wording for those motions are the
>> same as
>> they word for the board votes.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>> Brian
>> ==============
>> Brian Kissel
>> Cell: 503.866.4424
>> Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>>>
>> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Mike Jones
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:02 PM
>>> To: board at openid.net
>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
>>> results are in
>>
>> Yes, I am opposed. The notification must include the precise
>> proposed text
>> changes to the IPR documents, preferably as tracked changes to the
>> approved
>> originals, so the lawyers know exactly what changes are being
>> considered to
>> our IPR policy and process. Until those precise changes are
>> drafted and
>> available, we can not start the 21-day legal review process.
>>
>> --
>> Mike
>>
>>>
>> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Brian Kissel
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:15 PM
>>> To: board at openid.net
>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
>>> results are in
>>
>> Given that we need a 21 day notification for a membership vote, I'd
>> suggest
>> we start that official notification now. Anyone opposed to that?
>>
>> Nat, can you create the posting for the home page of the OIDF
>> website, which
>> is also required?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>> Brian
>> ==============
>> Brian Kissel
>> Cell: 503.866.4424
>> Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>>>
>> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Nat Sakimura
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:58 PM
>>> To: david at sixapart.com; board at openid.net
>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
>>> results are in
>>
>> Hmmm. While this option sounds attractive, we might want to take
>> two phased
>> approach.
>>> I have just made motions for the urgent things. If we start
>>> requirement
>>> gathering at this stage, it will delay these changes.
>>>
>>> So, my proposal is to do what the board vote approved in parallel
>>> to the
>>> longer term ammendment with requirement gatherings. (BTW, there
>>> are bunch of
>>> things that I want to list under this mid-term project.)
>>>
>>> I will draft the ammendment to the Process document this weekend.
>>>
>>> One of the motion is unrelated to the Process document, but to
>>> assign the
>>> committee liaison the power to take an initiative to facilitate
>>> and advance
>>> the specs process. i.e., David is now officially empowered to
>>> chase down the
>>> specs council members as well as to help out the proposers so that
>>> the
>>> process goes as quick as it can.
>>>
>>> I have not seen much progress on OpenID+OAuth hybrid and CX specs
>>> council
>>> process. I hope this will improve the situation.
>>>
>>> =nat
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:10 AM, David Recordon
>> <david at sixapart.com> wrote:
>> Given that there are some other things we'd like to amend to the IPR
>> Process, should we try to capture the entire list of changes we
>> wish to make
>> so we only need to do this once?
>>
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Brian Kissel wrote:
>>
>>
>> OK thanks Mike. Do we have a "members" email address to start the
>> membership notification period?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>> Brian
>> ==============
>> Brian Kissel
>> Cell: 503.866.4424
>> Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>>>
>> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Mike Jones
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:55 AM
>>> To: board at openid.net
>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
>>> results are in
>>
>> We can not amend the process doc without a membership vote, and the
>> following criteria being met, as per section 3.4 of the process:
>>
>> * 21 day notice period
>> * Multiple electronic notice required (if the OIDF member
>> has
>> provided multiple addresses), including to a "legal contact," if
>> provided
>> * Prominent posting (at least 21 days in advance of the
>> beginning
>> of the voting period) on homepage of OIDF website
>> * 7 day voting period after end of notice period (if vote
>> is not
>> taken at a properly-noticed meeting)
>> * OIDF members may designate a proxy from the member's
>> registered
>> OpenID identifier specifying the designated proxy's OpenID identifier
>> * Any approved change is prospective only
>> * Approval of a change requires either of the following:
>> Approval Option 1
>> o Quorum of greater of 60% of OIDF membership or 30 OIDF members
>> (no
>> bypass option) and
>> o Supermajority vote of those constituting a quorum, plus a
>> majority
>> concurrence by the OIDF Board
>> Approval Option 2
>> o Quorum of greater of 30% of OIDF membership or 30 OIDF members
>> (no
>> bypass option) and
>> o Majority vote of those constituting a quorum, plus a
>> supermajority
>> concurrence by the entire OIDF Board (where "absents" and
>> "abstains" count
>> as "no" votes)
>> Any change to the IPR Policy or Processes will not be effective
>> until 21
>> days after approval, during which time then-current Contributors may
>> withdraw in accordance with the IPR Policy or Processes as they
>> existed
>> prior to the change
>>
>> Nat could produce an updated draft of the doc (which should have
>> tracked
>> changes on relative to the approved version) for legal membership
>> review
>> prior to the vote, but none of this can go into effect until the
>> membership
>> vote has occurred and met the criteria above.
>>
>> --
>> Mike
>>
>>>
>> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Brian Kissel
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:29 PM
>>> To: board at openid.net
>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes -
>>> results are in
>>
>> Thanks to everyone for your timely voting. While the polls are
>> still open,
>> all 4 of the motions made by Nat have passed. Nat can you take
>> care of
>> modifying the OpenID process document?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>> Brian
>> ==============
>> Brian Kissel
>> Cell: 503.866.4424
>> Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>>>
>> From: Brian Kissel
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:24 PM
>>> To: 'board at openid.net'
>>> Subject: RE: 4 spec process improvement board votes - please go to
>>> the
>>> website and vote
>>
>> Hello All, just a reminder to go to the website and vote on these 4
>> motions. To date we only have 5 votes and we need 7 for a majority
>> decision.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>> Brian
>> ==============
>> Brian Kissel
>> Cell: 503.866.4424
>> Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>>>
>> From: Brian Kissel
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 1:16 PM
>>> To: board at openid.net
>>> Subject: 4 spec process improvement board votes
>>
>> Hello OIDF board members,
>>
>> The four spec process improvement motions made by Nat Sakimura and
>> seconded
>> by Brian Kissel have now completed the seven day notification and
>> discussion
>> period. Each motion is now available for board voting on the OIDF
>> polling
>> tool. A simple majority vote by 7 or more board members is
>> required for
>> approval on each motion. The vote ends on January 31st, 2009.
>>
>> Regards,
>>> Brian
>> ___________
>>
>> Brian Kissel
>> CEO, JanRain - OpenID-enable your websites, customers, partners, and
>> employees
>> 5331 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 375, Portland, OR 97239
>> Email: bkissel at janrain.com Cell: 503.866.4424 Fax:
>> 503.296.5502
>>
>>>
>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>> signature database 3796 (20090124) __________
>>>
>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>
>>>
>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>> signature database 3805 (20090127) __________
>>>
>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>
>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>> signature database 3805 (20090127) __________
>>>
>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>
>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>> signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
>>>
>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>
>>> http://www.eset.com
>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature
>> database 3811 (20090129) __________
>>
>>
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>>
>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>> signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
>>>
>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>
>>> http://www.eset.com
>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>>
>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>> signature database 3811 (20090129) __________
>>>
>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>
>>> http://www.eset.com
>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Messina
> Citizen-Participant &
> Open Web Advocate-at-Large
>
> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
More information about the board
mailing list