[OpenID board] Fwd: [OpenID Foundation] New Poll Opened

Brian Kissel bkissel at janrain.com
Fri Mar 20 04:25:56 UTC 2009


I also recollect that Nat's summary below is what was discussed and decided.

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 Nat Sakimura
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 6:00 PM
To: david at sixapart.com; board at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Fwd: [OpenID Foundation] New Poll Opened

I do not think "take a look at the IPR Process in a holistic
perspective" was a consensus. To me, taking "at least a month" before
any concrete proposal would be too time consuming, since we have
already lost a quarter. There is a board approved 4 changes with
proposed text sitting there for a month, and to me, adding the 5th
one, which is Allen's proposal, is adequate. (Note, this change was
also incorporated in the current proposed text. A lawyer can review it
in a day max.) David opposed to that idea, so it was made an action
item among Don, David, and me to discuss and drive it.

That is the state of it.

=nat

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:17 AM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com> wrote:
> This was discussed briefly by the Board yesterday during our meeting and we
> plan to take a look at the IPR Process in a holistic perspective, looking at
> the changes that can be made to address how hard it is to get started.
>
> --David
>
> On Mar 19, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Martin Atkins wrote:
>
>> David Recordon wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Brett,
>>> There is a 14-day discussion period once the Specs Council has approved
>>> the WG which occurs on the specs at openid.net <mailto:specs at openid.net>
>>> mailing list.  There was also a discussion on the same list leading up to
>>> the Specs Council vote on the proposal.
>>> I think everyone agrees that there are other user interface improvements
>>> to be made, though pop-ups are a good starting point.  I think we should
>>> address this once the working group is created and see if there is consensus
>>> there to rename the specification being produced.
>>
>> Once again I find myself wondering why there is a vote to create a working
>> group. This is especially perplexing in this case where you seem to be
>> suggesting that after the group is formed it might decide to change its
>> scope.
>>
>> Why can't we just let working groups be created and do their work and then
>> do the vote on the finished specification itself rather than on the plan to
>> create one?
>>
>> All the current setup seems to achieve is that folks do most of the work
>> in other forums like the "step2" mailing list where the OpenID community
>> can't necessarily see it, and then they just go through the motions to
>> create the working group after most of the work has already been done. This
>> seems counter-productive.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3949 (20090319) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3950 (20090320) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3950 (20090320) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com




More information about the board mailing list