<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Dick Hardt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com">dick.hardt@gmail.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;">
David:<br>
<br>
1) Yes, we need to improve the process<br>
<br>
2) We need to work with the current process until we have it improved.<br>
<br>
3) Please create the specs-council list so that we can archive our<br>
conversations and we can approve the outstanding WG. The holidays are<br>
almost upon us!</blockquote><div><br>I think list is already done. <a href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-<span class="nfakPe">council</span>@openid.net</a> . <br>Please zoom ahead! <img goomoji="330" style="margin: 0pt 0.2ex; vertical-align: middle;" src="cid:330@goomoji.gmail"><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>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-- Dick<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
On 17-Dec-08, at 9:22 AM, David Recordon wrote:<br>
<br>
> Yeah, this is something we're working on taking care of. Right now<br>
> the challenge is:<br>
> - There are a few proposals for working groups with very little<br>
> consensus among the community around any of them<br>
> - Most of the working group proposals are still drafts<br>
> - Mike Jones has a thread going with other specs council members<br>
> about how we need to respond to these proposals<br>
> - The specs council does not currently have a mailing list and there<br>
> is a struggle between creating another low traffic list versus using<br>
> an existing list. I've been asked to make a list, which I can do,<br>
> though there is little to no consensus that we should do so<br>
><br>
> I then personally have a larger struggle with the process in place. I<br>
> strongly believe that it does not do good for OpenID to have it pushed<br>
> in divergent technical directions (we've seen what happened with 2.0<br>
> as it tried to please everyone) though feel that the community has<br>
> very little power to prevent that. While I could drive toward<br>
> consensus on the specs@ mailing list that a proposal still needs<br>
> changes to fit along with the direction of OpenID, technically the<br>
> specs council would be hard pressed to use that as a reason to not<br>
> approve a working group.<br>
><br>
> The specs council is given a list of four reasons that it can not<br>
> approve a new working group. To take a lack of consensus on the<br>
> specs@ mailing list as input, it would have to decide either "that<br>
> the proposal contravenes the OpenID community's purpose" (where the<br>
> Foundation says "OpenID is a set of freely available enabling<br>
> technologies that facilitate individuals to use their identity and<br>
> profile from one web resource to access many others in a<br>
> decentralized, secure, and easy fashion built upon existing web<br>
> technologies.") or "that the proposed WG does not have sufficient<br>
> support to succeed or to deliver proposed deliverables within<br>
> projected completion dates." While significant part of the technical<br>
> community might disagree with a working group proposal, I don't see<br>
> there being a way (as a member of the specs council) to in good faith<br>
> decide that it contravenes the purpose or except in extremely grave<br>
> cases that it would not succeed.<br>
><br>
> From there the proposal goes to a vote of the membership which is<br>
> structured in such a way as to pass with a quorum requirement of 20%<br>
> of the membership or 20 members, whichever is greater, and a simple<br>
> majority vote.<br>
><br>
> Beyond all of that, the quickest that a working group can be formed is<br>
> no more than 15 days of review by the specs council (which we're<br>
> failing at right now), plus a 14 day notice period of the membership<br>
> vote, plus a 7 day voting period. This thus means that by our current<br>
> process it takes approximately a month for new work to begin.<br>
><br>
> From there, the fastest that a working group could produce a final<br>
> specification is theoretically 120 days. The IPR Process requires a<br>
> review period of at least 60 days (which PAPE is going through right<br>
> now) for a final specification. From there, assuming that no one<br>
> objects around IPR or the board for legal liability, a 45 day review<br>
> period for the membership of the Foundation is started which results<br>
> in a 14 day voting period to approval the specification and officially<br>
> call it "OpenID <something>". This thus means that from the day the<br>
> working group feels they have their final draft, it will take 119 days<br>
> (~4 months) for the specification to go through all of the needed IPR<br>
> review steps.<br>
><br>
> I know that I was intimately involved in creating this process but the<br>
> more that I see it in practice, the more that I know we must change it<br>
> and understand why new innovative work like the OpenID and OAuth<br>
> Hybrid occurs outside the purview of the OpenID Foundation. (And yes,<br>
> I understand how I'm being a bit hypocritical by saying that getting<br>
> started should be easier yet only for the work that a core group feels<br>
> fits into what OpenID is which can be done in many different ways.)<br>
><br>
> I guess my point is that we need to make it much easier to get<br>
> started, though make sure it is hard for something to be called<br>
> "OpenID" when it clearly doesn't use existing OpenID technology or<br>
> does something wildly different. Right now our process is loaded up<br>
> at the start and at the end, which means that people are going and<br>
> starting elsewhere.<br>
><br>
> --David<br>
><br>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 8:09 AM, Scott Kveton wrote:<br>
><br>
>>> It might not be the board issue, but there are several WG proosals<br>
>>> sitting there. According to the OpenID process, spec comittee needs<br>
>>> issue a recomendatiom within two weeks so that the working group<br>
>>> creation voting can take place.<br>
>><br>
>> Is this something for the specifications council?:<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID_Foundation/SC" target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID_Foundation/SC</a><br>
>><br>
>> I believe this is out of scope for the Exec. Committee.<br>
>><br>
>> - Scott<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> =nat@TOKYO via iPhone<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 2008/12/18, at 0:41, "Scott Kveton" <<a href="mailto:scott@kveton.com">scott@kveton.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Unless anyone has anything particularly pressing to discuss, I'd<br>
>>>> like<br>
>>>> to cancel the Executive Committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow at<br>
>>>> 11am PST.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> If there is something you'd like to discuss and still feel like we<br>
>>>> need a meeting, by all means, let me know and we can rethink.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> FYI,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> - Scott<br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> board mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> board mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
>>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> board mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
>> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> board mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br><a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>