[OpenID board] v.Next SOW

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Sat May 29 17:13:18 UTC 2010


For context for those of you that were not on the thread, what is being proposed is an hourly contract - not a fee for deliverables contract.  While some committee members expressed a wish for specific milestones and time estimates, others felt that this was not reasonable or possible, given that Dick's involvement is meant to supplement - not replace - community participation, and that progress will still be highly dependent upon the degree of community involvement (as indeed, we want it to be!).

There were several changes made to the original statement of work based upon input from the technology committee where there was clear committee consensus.  In contrast, milestones were not added because of the reasons stated above and because there was not a consensus within the technology committee that they were possible or reasonable.


For transparency, I wrote back to Don's request saying "I agree that this SOW incorporates the consensus feedback of the technology committee."  It does not incorporate some feedback for which there was not committee consensus.  Without consensus on particular points, it's reasonable to proceed to develop a contract which the full board will soon get to evaluate.



Also for context, the resolution that you voted for David, was "to have the executive director and counsel produce term sheet by the end of May for up to $30,000 with input from the technical committee".  As I see it, the committee did give its input, resulting in several specific changes to the SOW.  The committee did its job in this process.  The technology committee was never a blocking reviewer, and the fact that there were some differences of opinion within the committee on one point does not block the ED and council from proceeding to carry out the board's wishes (which you also voted for).



Finally, I'll point out that in an hourly contract, the check-and-balance is that either party can terminate the contract without cause at any point.  Instead of having specific milestones up front, instead, the board is free to terminate the contract if we're not satisfied with the actual progress.  This is a normal kind of consulting contract.



I'm sorry that you've chosen to resign because I value your perspectives.  I hope that you reconsider.



                                                            -- Mike

From: David Recordon [mailto:recordond at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 11:37 PM
To: Don Thibeau (OIDF ED); openid-board at lists.openid.net
Cc: tech-comm at openid.net; scott.david at klgates.com
Subject: Re: v.Next SOW

(Adding the Board mailing list and trimming the non-public emails out of courtesy. This thread was a revised statement of work from Dick, Don asking if it represented a consensus view of the Technology Committee, and one of the Committee members replying that it did.)

While a lot of the feedback from the Technology Committee and Brian Kissel was incorporated into this statement of work, only two members of the committee replied affirmatively in regards to the revisions. I re-asked some of the original questions (which Dick replied to) and the remaining three members of the Committee have not replied. It's possible that silence is being interpreted as consensus.

I personally have a hard time fully evaluating this statement of work without understanding the timeline around the deliverables and overall cost. To help get us closer to consensus I've decided to resign as Vice Chair of the Technology Committee.

--David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20100529/7b28a1bd/attachment.html>


More information about the board mailing list