Hi. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:40 AM, David Recordon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:drecordon@sixapart.com">drecordon@sixapart.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><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">On Dec 17, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 17-Dec-08, at 2:29 PM, David Recordon wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Or ideally the group would emerge with a draft of a spec along with<br>
>> some form of consensus around it and thus be easier to write and have<br>
>> a better informed scope statement.<br>
>><br>
>> If we were to do this, what would it look like?<br>
>><br>
>> 1) Some group of people decide they want to tackle a problem. They<br>
>> email the specs@ mailing list with some sort of description of what<br>
>> they want to do and we set them up with a mailing list like drafting-<br>
>> <name>@<a href="http://openid.net" target="_blank">openid.net</a>. (I'd also have no problem in using Google Groups<br>
>> for these since it's less maintenance and makes it easier for those<br>
>> leading the work to manage.)<br>
><br>
> I'm fine with Google groups -- but we need to enforce membership and<br>
> have IPR in place to participate<br>
<br>
</div>Good points. We need a process for dealing with the IPR docs. This<br>
is ideally something the ED will do. They receive an IPR doc, upload<br>
it somewhere, and add the person's name, affiliation, and email to a<br>
web page which WG editors can refer to when processing membership.<br>
ASF's page is at <a href="http://people.apache.org/%7Ejim/committers.html" target="_blank">http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html</a>.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
>> 2) Group is created and it tries to stay away from calling their<br>
>> document "OpenID <foo>" for the time being.<br>
><br>
> how about OpenID-Proposal-<foo><br>
<br>
</div>Sure, just some clear naming convention that won't confuse adopters.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
>> 3) To post to the list, you must agree to the existing IPR policy so<br>
>> everything around withdrawal and review periods of later stage drafts<br>
>> remain the same.<br>
><br>
> Is that an email or a executed form faxed in?<br>
<br>
</div>I think the form currently needs to be faxed or scanned and emailed.</blockquote><div><br>Or handed in person, which I did in the iiw2008a. <br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
> The challenge for some people will be that they do not want what<br>
> 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. <br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
>> 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. <br> </div><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"><br>
<br>
>> 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? <br><br>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...<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>