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

Fri Mar 20 04:53:47 UTC 2009

My hope is for an IPR policy and process that does the following two things:

  1) Produces "clean" intellectual property (i.e., specs that have been
non-asserted by the contributors, copyright license applied, etc)
  2) Ensures appropriate use of the OpenID trademark

Neither of these two goals strictly require the pre-determined-scope /
working group model we follow today.

On the contrary, by placing the burden up front all we've done is politicize
technical work before it is even officially begins (or worse, stalling it so
long that it never begins).  Specifications aren't evaluated on technical
merit after looking at a full draft; they're judged before the ideas are
even partially explored.  Worse this gives the appearance of an ownership
over OpenID that I'm almost certain was never intended by the original
inventors of the technology and supporters of the foundation.

As an alternative, I'd like to see us move to a much simpler and more
meritocratic model that says:

   1) Anyone, member of the OIDF or not, can start working on an OpenID
specification, but they must do so only under a provisional brand ("OpenID
Experimental", or something)
   2) In order for the specification to graduate and earn the official
"OpenID" trademark the completed specification must be:
      2a) Ratified by membership vote
      2b) Non-asserted and copyright-licensed in accordance with OIDF IPR
policy

Of course, the OIDF can offer tools and processes, such as an up-front
contributor license agreement and specification editorial guidelines, to
assist communities in successfully bringing a specification to graduation.
But beyond enforcing trademark and ensuring IP cleanliness, I'm not sure we
want the OIDF board to assert more authority over the direction of the
technology than that.

-DeWitt

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090319/859aa352/attachment-0002.htm>