<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:53 PM, DeWitt Clinton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dewitt@google.com">dewitt@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
My hope is for an IPR policy and process that does the following two things:<br><br> 1) Produces "clean" intellectual property (i.e., specs that have been non-asserted by the contributors, copyright license applied, etc)<br>
2) Ensures appropriate use of the OpenID trademark</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's important to point out that IPR concerns are largely to blame for the scoping and work that precedes most WG forming (at least as I see it). Without coming to some prior consensus on what a WG is going to be about, contributors are likely to abstain from the process, lest some initiative or WG veer to close to IPR that they intend to enforce.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If that is not the case, I'm all for an alternative because I agree that this process has dragged on far too long, with the likely long term consequence of similar situations resulting in parties deviating entirely from the standardization process. Should creating open standards be so handicapped when compared with their proprietary counterparts? I should hope not! (though we'll see, given the dissent already expressed)</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>As an alternative, I'd like to see us move to a much simpler and more meritocratic model that says:<br>
<br> 1) Anyone, member of the OIDF or not, can start working on an OpenID specification, but they must do so only under a provisional brand ("OpenID Experimental", or something)<br>
2) In order for the specification to graduate and earn the official "OpenID" trademark the completed specification must be:<br> 2a) Ratified by membership vote<br> 2b) Non-asserted and copyright-licensed in accordance with OIDF IPR policy<br>
<br>Of course, the OIDF can offer tools and processes, such as an up-front contributor license agreement and specification editorial guidelines, to assist communities in successfully bringing a specification to graduation. But beyond enforcing trademark and ensuring IP cleanliness, I'm not sure we want the OIDF board to assert more authority over the direction of the technology than that.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>+1. The caveat is that many members of the board are participating in the standardization/specification process, and so that gives the appearance that the board has much to do with the technical work that going on — largely because... we do! </div>
<div><br></div><div>That said, I do think that it's important to think about abstracting out the foundation's duties from the technical work that needs to happen, but as we are still a young organization, there is bound to be some curious overlap in the meantime. As well, given our limited membership, there will continue to be limited attention available for different specification work — meaning that having many several WG going on simultaneously may become burdensome and debilitating if we don't find a better way to keep track of what's happening and who's working on what.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I see the website as being critical to this, but as to when or who is going to fix it or *magic* make it better, that remains to be seen. Only so many hours in the day; only so much work that can be directed on a part-time basis.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Chris</div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Chris Messina<br>Citizen-Participant &<br> Open Web Advocate<br><br><a href="http://factoryjoe.com">factoryjoe.com</a> // <a href="http://diso-project.org">diso-project.org</a> // <a href="http://vidoop.com">vidoop.com</a><br>
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private<br>