[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process - notification of 7 day discussion period
Chris Messina
chris.messina at gmail.com
Sat Jan 17 06:39:48 UTC 2009
I've uploaded a screencast that demonstrates how to create a new page
using the template that I created:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/18443/new-page.mov
Incidentally, if any of you would like to create templated pages, just
create a page as you normally would and then give it a tag called
'template'.
Chris
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
> Skitch.com registration was rather nice. Only, if they could accept my
> OpenID as a screen name, that was perfect.
>
> Having said that, I could not figure out how to create the template...
> I would love to learn.
>
> =nat
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:
>>
>> Excellent Chris, great start, thanks.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Brian
>> ==============
>> Brian Kissel
>> Cell: 503.866.4424
>> Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
>> Of Chris Messina
>> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 2:02 PM
>> To: board at openid.net
>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process - notification of
>> 7 day discussion period
>>
>> I have created a template that can be tweaked that could be used for
>> this, and other votes:
>>
>> https://openid.pbwiki.com/Call-for-Vote
>>
>> When you create a new page for a vote, you can use this template by
>> choosing it from the list of templates:
>>
>> http://skitch.com/factoryjoe/bbpqa/openid-wiki-create-a-new-page
>>
>> If you have ideas to improve the template, please do so. I took my
>> best stab at it, but it could definitely use some massaging.
>>
>> It might be useful for Nat to create a new page for this current vote
>> and fill out the template to see if we're missing anything.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:
>> > This motion has been seconded by Mike, Raj, Eric, Brian, and Gary.
>> > Therefore we're starting the 7 day notification and discussion clock for
>> > an
>> > online board-only vote. There will be a separate vote for each motion.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If anyone has suggestions on how to ensure that the discussion and
>> > voting
>> > process complies with our bylaws, is fair, open, and efficient, please
>> > provide your input. Given that board meetings are only every six weeks
>> > and
>> > that historically it's been hard to get a large percentage of our board
>> > members to participate on calls, I'd like to suggest that we try to do
>> > more
>> > routine administrative votes via our board voting tool. If, during the
>> > notification and discussion period, we determine that the issues are too
>> > involved or complex to adequately decide via an online vote, we can
>> > always
>> > cancel the online vote and defer the vote until the next regularly
>> > scheduled
>> > board meeting. Does that sound reasonable to everyone?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > One thing that I haven't seen is how long we should keep the polls open
>> > for
>> > each vote. For the board nominations and elections, it was 2 weeks,
>> > which
>> > made sense. However, one of our goals in 2009 is to be more timely in
>> > our
>> > execution. So I'd like to suggest that the default period for an online
>> > board vote is 7 days or until the required majority has been reached.
>> > For
>> > example, on the International Liaison vote, we already have 10 yes votes
>> > and
>> > zero no votes in one day, so I believe that this motion has passed.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Looking forward to feedback from others.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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 Raj Mata
>> > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:14 AM
>> > To: board at openid.net
>> > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> >
>> > From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
>> > Behalf
>> > Of Eric Sachs
>> > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:09 AM
>> > To: board at openid.net
>> > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Also agreed, thx Nat
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Mike Jones
>> > <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > These motions all make sense to me - particularly since creation of the
>> > PAPE
>> > working group was delayed for so long due to specs council issues and
>> > I'm
>> > watching the same play out with the current proposals. Having been
>> > there
>> > when we came up with the idea of the specs council, the idea behind it
>> > was
>> > for it to provide useful feedback cutting across the different
>> > specifications while proposals were being discussed and to make a timely
>> > recommendation once a proposal was formally submitted - NOT to be an
>> > impediment to the creation of working groups or a hurdle that proposals
>> > had
>> > to clear.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks for taking the time to write these up, Nat. They should make the
>> > specs council reality more closely match the intent, and substantially
>> > improve the present situation.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > -- Mike
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
>> > Behalf
>> > Of Brian Kissel
>> > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:17 AM
>> > To: board at openid.net
>> > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Nat, thank you for your proactive efforts to help improve the
>> > effectiveness
>> > and efficiency of our spec process. As I understand it, the board needs
>> > to
>> > vote on your motions, then present to the membership for approval. I
>> > second
>> > all four of Nat's motions below for a vote by the board.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hopefully we'll have the board polling tool working this week, so look
>> > for
>> > an email notification for pending board votes on each of these motions.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If others would like to discuss Nat's proposals before the vote, please
>> > provide your thoughts to the group.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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 15, 2009 12:01 AM
>> > To: board at openid.net
>> > Subject: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> > signature
>> > database 3768 (20090115) __________
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.eset.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> > signature
>> > database 3769 (20090115) __________
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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 3769 (20090115) __________
>> >
>> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>> >
>> > http://www.eset.com
>> >
>> >
>> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> > signature
>> > database 3772 (20090116) __________
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the board
mailing list