<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Inline...<div><br><div><div>On Dec 17, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: -1; ">> The challenge for some people will be that they do not want what</span></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"> > they consider unrelated IPR to be brought into a WG -- and since the<br> > scope is not really defined, they need to be able to opt out after<br> > scope is defined. I forget if that is in the IPR statements now.<br> <br> </div>I'd think these people wouldn't participate in this earlier work if<br> they're uncomfortable doing so without a scope, though also reading<br> the IPR Policy the withdrawal provision might already be enough to<br> work. Basically, as long as these groups don't publish Implementor<br> Drafts or a Final Specification, then contributors are allowed to<br> withdraw given seven days written notice, would not have any<br> obligations around patents, and would remain subject to the copyrights<br> section.</blockquote><div><br>But of course, if that happens, the WG must identify what IPR infringement they were making. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It doesn't necessarily mean that the WG is infringing any IP. It should probably however be noted somewhere a list of who has withdrawn.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">>> 4) At some point, one or more drafts in, the group decides to<br> >> formalize their WG.<br> >> 5) They write a charter/scope to submit along with their draft and an<br> >> accurate list of authors/contributors.<br> >> 6) Specs Council / membership approves their WG or decides that the<br> >> draft they've produced really doesn't fit into OpenID and works with<br> >> the group on either how to change that (e.g. more reuse) or helps<br> >> them<br> >> move to another organization to finish their work.<br> ><br> > currently we require a membership vote to approve a WG do we not?<br> <br> </div>Yes, oversight not including that versus explicitly looking to not<br> include the step. That said, shortening the ~30 days here would be<br> nice. I also wonder if the membership vote is actually effective<br> given how it is currently designed with quorum and a simple majority.<br> <div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><div><br>It is ineffective and not needed, I think. <br>It is better to check afterwards than before. <br>Right now, we have three check points: 1. Implementor's draft, 2. Final spec., 3. Market adoption. <br> That should be enough. To me, 3. is the most important one. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, market adoption is the most important. That said, blindly trying to get market adoption by using the OpenID brand isn't a good thing. :)</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">>> 7) They use the rest of the process to publish an Implementor's Draft<br> >> and then in the end a Final Draft.<br> ><br> > and then a vote by the membership<br> <br> </div>Yes, I don't propose changing the process for publishing Implementors<br> Drafts or the Final Specification at this time. As far as I can tell,<br> this is:<br> <br> Implementors Draft:<br> - WG comes to consensus to publish an Implementors Draft<br> - 45 day IPR review period starts aimed at contributors<br> - The OIDF board has 30 days (within the 45) to make sure the<br> Implementors Draft won't "create untenable legal liability for OIDF or<br> the Board" and that it is not outside of the WG's scope.<br> - (It seems there is also written in a membership vote here, though<br> it doesn't make sense and I'm guessing is an extra copy/paste.)<br> <br> Final Specification:<br> - WG comes to consensus to publish the Final Specification after at<br> least one Implementors Draft<br> - 60 day IPR review period starts aimed at contributors<br> - The OIDF board has 30 days (within the 45) to make sure the<br> Implementors Draft won't "create untenable legal liability for OIDF or<br> the Board" and that it is not outside of the WG's scope.<br> - 14 day notice period of an OIDF member vote to approve the Final<br> Specification</blockquote><div><br>As to these votings are concerned, would individual members count too?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, these are for all OIDF members.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I think it is a good move to try to get more non-tech normal people start joining the foundaiton, but at the same time, having them involved in the voting of this sort is kind of hard...</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed. I'd wager that most don't care.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br> </div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br><a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>