[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process - notification of 7 day discussion period

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Sat Jan 17 09:08:18 UTC 2009


That's great!

Thanks!

=nat

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Chris Messina <chris.messina at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20090117/97d0ab8c/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the board mailing list