Hi. <br><br>After having worked through PAPE 1.0 spec process, as well as some other spec proposals, I noticed that there can be several things that we can do to smooth the process. I think they were worthwhile excercises to find out these glitches. <br>
<br>Followings are the proposed motions that I would like the board to consider. There are two types: one that can take effect immediately, and one that requires board and membership voting. <br><br><b>I. For immediate implementation of the current process: </b><br>
<br>One of the obstacles that we have found during the process was that it was kind of hard to get the specs council to deliver the recommendation in a timely fashion. It has seen some improvement recently, but we want to make sure to continue it. Thus, I would like to propose the following: <br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br><b><i>BE IT RESOLVED that the OIDF Committee Liason is directed to act as the
coordinator for the specification council so that specification council create a
recommendation for the membership about a formal working group proposal within
15 days of the complete proposal being circulated on <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net" target="_blank">specs@openid.net</a> to comply to the current
OpenID process. </i></b><br><br><br></div><b>II. Improvements of curent porcess</b><br><br>As a longer term solution, I would like to propose the following three motions. The first two are to make sure the timely and effective response from the specs council, and the last one is to protect the OpenID(TM) as well as to make it easier to create a WG so that all the discussion will be done inside the WG and the output is IPR clean. <br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><b><i><br>BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to amend
the OpenID process document so that should the specifications council not create
a recommendation for the membership about a formal working group proposal within
15 days of the complete proposal being circulated on <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net" target="_blank">specs@openid.net</a>, then the proposal may
proceed to a membership vote for approval. </i></b><br><br></div><div class="Ih2E3d"><i><b>BE IT
RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to amend the
OpenID process document so that should specs council members not participate in
the discussion of two consecutive working group proposals, they will be deemed
to have resigned, and new specs council members who are committed to
participating in the process will be appointed to replace them.</b></i><br><br></div><i><b>BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to amend
the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft may claim OpenID trademark
until it is ratified to be an implementor's draft status or full specification
status. </b></i><br><br>Please note that these consitute the core decision for IPR and process, so it will have to go through the membership vote as well after creating the actual errata. <br><br>Cheers, <br><br>=nat<br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br><a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>