[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

David Recordon david at sixapart.com
Fri Jan 16 03:25:40 UTC 2009


Considering that an Implementors Draft is a stage determined by the  
Working Group, I don't believe that it should then be able to call  
itself "OpenID".  The tension we're seeing here was discussed about a  
month ago where right now there are nearly no hurdles toward the end  
of the process to make sure that a specification really is "OpenID".   
Instead, we're seeing the Specs Council place that hurdle at the  
beginning.

So, yes this process needs to become easier to get started but it  
isn't going to do get the community closer to our goals of simplicity,  
user experience (which the CX proposal explicitly states is out of  
scope!) and mainstream adoption if any specification becomes OpenID.

--David

On Jan 15, 2009, at 12:01 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:

> Hi.
>
> After having worked through PAPE 1.0 spec process, as well as some  
> other spec proposals, I noticed that there can be several things  
> that we can do to smooth the process. I think they were worthwhile  
> excercises to find out these glitches.
>
> Followings are the proposed motions that I would like the board to  
> consider. There are two types: one that can take effect immediately,  
> and one that requires board and membership voting.
>
> I. For immediate implementation of the current process:
>
> One of the obstacles that we have found during the process was that  
> it was kind of hard to get the specs council to deliver the  
> recommendation in a timely fashion. It has seen some improvement  
> recently, but we want to make sure to continue it. Thus, I would  
> like to propose the following:
>
> BE IT RESOLVED that the OIDF Committee Liason is directed to act as  
> the coordinator for the specification council so that specification  
> council create a recommendation for the membership about a formal  
> working group proposal within 15 days of the complete proposal being  
> circulated on specs at openid.net to comply to the current OpenID  
> process.
>
>
> II. Improvements of curent porcess
>
> As a longer term solution, I would like to propose the following  
> three motions. The first two are to make sure the timely and  
> effective response from the specs council, and the last one is to  
> protect the OpenID(TM) as well as to make it easier to create a WG  
> so that all the discussion will be done inside the WG and the output  
> is IPR clean.
>
> BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have  
> agreed to amend the OpenID process document so that should the  
> specifications council not create a recommendation for the  
> membership about a formal working group proposal within 15 days of  
> the complete proposal being circulated on specs at openid.net, then the  
> proposal may proceed to a membership vote for approval.
>
> BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have  
> agreed to amend the OpenID process document so that should specs  
> council members not participate in the discussion of two consecutive  
> working group proposals, they will be deemed to have resigned, and  
> new specs council members who are committed to participating in the  
> process will be appointed to replace them.
>
> BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have  
> agreed to amend the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft  
> may claim OpenID trademark until it is ratified to be an  
> implementor's draft status or full specification status.
>
> Please note that these consitute the core decision for IPR and  
> process, so it will have to go through the membership vote as well  
> after creating the actual errata.
>
> Cheers,
>
> =nat
>
> -- 
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090115/6331b8dd/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the board mailing list