[OpenID] Anti-endorsement of Eran Hammer-Lahav

[Peter Williams]

Why not follow the same rules as the present voting system.

One has a formal contributor record, to which the users choice of openid links: but one use any registered openid in the WG forum, including a pseudonymous one.

Today, only the 2 election officers (only) have rights to pierce the voting privacy; WG chairs for example do  not, and neither do other Board members or EOs.

Why not have the same rule in the WG forums: the (registered) openid gives assurance of contributor agreement being in effect (because it's bound to the member/contributor record, and contributions are signed and thus identified (by the openid). Though the average member cannot test the openid will not be able to know the legal name of who signed it, in the event of  dispute (over IPR) the veil can be pierced.

This is fun. OpenID Foundation rejects UCI! says headline.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran at hueniverse.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 12:34 PM
> To: Peter Williams; SitG Admin; general at openid.net
> Subject: RE: [OpenID] Anti-endorsement of Eran Hammer-Lahav
>
> Because the framework we chose to operate within requires clear
> licensing of any contributed IP. How can someone make such assertion
> anonymously? If a company wants to know who are the people behind a
> standard and what companies they represent so they can make sure they
> understand the risk associated, how can they do that if you will not
> fully disclose this information?
>
> The IETF is a bad example for most IPR issues because they really only
> deal with copyrights and not patents. But this is a separate
> conversation and OpenID is the wrong community to have this
> conversation.
>
> > I will not agree to terms that are not pertinent (and incorporate an
> explicit (personal) promissory about contributions).  Some of us are
> > involved in infringement litigation. I'll guess you are not.
> > Still life has to  continue: this just part of business.
> > Go create an actual membership agreement that distinguishes
> contributors and non-contributors. Don't mix the two.
> > And get rid of point 2: a wholly generalized compliance obligation
> for members (vs contributors).
> > No individual in their right minds grants such global power to a
> bunch of email buddies, they have never met.
>
> You are mixing two separate agreements. You will not be allowed to post
> messages (or at least should not) to working group mailing lists. To do
> that you must agree to the IPR policy. The general list is not a
> working group. The OpenID Foundation is a legal entity with a set of
> bylaws. You cannot be a member if you do not agree fully to these
> bylaws. It seems like you do not agree with many of the foundation
> activities and bylaws to the point where you refuse to become a member.
>
> I find your arguments (in general) to be closer to paranoia than
> reason. Your constant accusations and complaints also assume the worse
> in people, which to remind you, are mostly doing this because they care
> and for the most part are the reason why this work exists to begin
> with! Your legal claims for the most part are just an exaggeration.
>
> Of course this is a free country and you can say whatever you want but
> I find your attitude towards both the election and current board to be
> out of line considering you refuse to comply with the basic rules the
> foundation has.
>
> EHL
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Williams [mailto:pwilliams at rapattoni.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 12:08 PM
> > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; SitG Admin; general at openid.net
> > Subject: RE: [OpenID] Anti-endorsement of Eran Hammer-Lahav
> >
> > I don't see why one should have to be personally identified when
> > contributing electronically to a Working Group.
> >
> > Perhaps there is a balance.
> >
> > Legal names for subscription (where you a paying, anyways, by visa).
> >
> > But openid (or other) pseudonyms for WGs are OK. Nyms are obviously
> > welcome here.
> >
> > I cannot see why anything else would be mandatory. (Will it ever
> become
> > a clause 2 issue!!)
> >
> > At the same time, I don't object to some particular WG chair imposing
> > his/her own per-WG rules. Schisms are likely, but that's all part of
> > the fun!
> >
> > (IETF WG chairs quite often turn to an authoritarian style - after a
> > sustained period of political frustration. Schisms are quite rare
> tho,
> > as they have strong and well-experienced steering group)
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-
> bounces at openid.net]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:51 AM
> > > To: SitG Admin; general at openid.net
> > > Subject: Re: [OpenID] Anti-endorsement of Eran Hammer-Lahav
> > >
> > > Sweet! My very own anti-endorsement.
> > >
> > > Of course the problem with your position is that you seems to be
> the
> > > only person in this entire community who hides behind an alias. You
> > are
> > > also not a member, will not join as a member, but still would like
> > your
> > > voice to count.
> > >
> > > There are multiple levels of contribution and some have legal
> > > ramification such as membership in the foundation and contribution
> to
> > a
> > > specification. Expressing random views on the general list is only
> > one
> > > form in which anonymity is permitted.
> > >
> > > EHL