[OIDFSC] Refreshing the OpenID specs council

Tue May 25 16:50:01 UTC 2010

Yeah, I no longer need to be involved.

Or, in council speak:

+1

(or is that -1?)

In any case, there are surely better replacements for me.  :-)

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>wrote:

>  At this point, we have affirmative responses from all but Brad and Josh.
> I propose that we now invite Breno and Nat to join the council to replace
> Brad and Josh.
>
>
>
> I agree that Dirk, Joseph, and John all bring strong qualifications, but to
> my knowledge, none have served as OpenID specification editors, whereas
> Breno and Nat have.
>
>
>
> Are there any objections to now inviting them to join?
>
>
>
>                                                                 -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* openid-specs-council-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:
> openid-specs-council-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Allen Tom
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 23, 2010 6:05 PM
> *To:* David Recordon; Mike Jones
> *Cc:* Johnny Bufu; Brad Fitzpatrick; openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net;
> Josh Hoyt; Dick Hardt
> *Subject:* Re: [OIDFSC] Refreshing the OpenID specs council
>
>
>
> Yes, I’d like to remain active on the specs council.
>
> In addition to Breno and Nat, I also think that Dirk Balfanz, Joseph Smarr,
> and John Bradley would also be really good additions.
>
> Allen
>
>
> On 5/23/10 5:49 PM, "David Recordon" <recordond at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I will remain active.
>
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I will remain active on the specs council.
>
> On 2010-05-23, at 1:04 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>
> As several OpenID working groups are being proposed, it would be good to
> ensure that the OpenID specifications council is populated with people who
> are currently active in specification development and have the appropriate
> expertise.  Per this note <
> http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/2008-June/002989.html> ,
> the council currently consists of these people, who are subscribed to the
> openid-specs-council list with these addresses:
>   - Allen Tom  atom at yahoo-inc.com <http://yahoo-inc.com>
>   - Brad Fitzpatrick  brad at danga.com <http://danga.com>
>   - David Recordon  recordond at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>   - Johnny Bufu  johnny.bufu at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>   - Josh Hoyt  josh at janrain.com <http://janrain.com>
>   - Dick Hardt  dick.hardt at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>   - Mike Jones  michael.jones at microsoft.com <http://microsoft.com>
>
> Can each of you who plan to remain active on the specifications council
> PLEASE RESPOND affirmatively to this note in the next few days?  Otherwise,
> we should offer the positions to other spec editors who will be active.  Nat
> Sakimura is certainly one person who comes to mind, as editor of the CX and
> Artifact Binding specifications, and also Breno de Medeiros, who is an
> editor for the User Interface Extension.
>
> To update your subscription to the openid-specs-council list, go to
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-council.
>
>                                                             Thanks,
>                                                             -- Mike
>
> As a reminder of the role of the specifications council, here are some of
> the relevant passages from the OpenID Process document <
> http://openid.net/wordpress-content/uploads/2010/01/OpenID_Process_Document_December_2009_Final_Approved.pdf>
> :
>
> *1.4*  “*Editor(s)*” means, for a particular Specification to be developed
> by a particular WG, the individual Contributor(s) selected to coordinate
> development of, and transcription of the work of the WG for, such
> Specification, as well as (together with any other Editors for that WG) to
> administer WG operation.
>
> *1.5*  “*Eligible Editors*” means, as determined on a given date, all
> Editors from current WGs and all other persons who: (a) were WG Editors at
> any time in the two years before such date; (b) are alive and have provided
> and maintained updated contact information with the OpenID Foundation; and
> (c) elect to participate in selection of the Specifications Council after at
> least seven days’ email notice.
>
> *1.6*  “*Specifications Council*” means a group comprised of: (a) two
> representatives selected by the Board; and (b) five representatives selected
> by the Eligible Editors.  The Board may select from among the current Board
> members (or other appropriate persons, as determined by the Board), and the
> Eligible Editors may select from among themselves (or other appropriate
> persons, as the Eligible Editors determine).
>
>
> *2  Specifications Council.*  The initial Specifications Council, as of
> the date these Processes are adopted, will be comprised of two persons
> selected by the Board and five persons selected by the then-current OpenID
> Authentication 2.0 Specification Editors.  The members of the Specifications
> Council will serve for two year terms (although one of the initial members
> selected by the Board and two of the initial members selected by the Editors
> of the OpenID Authentication 2.0 Specification will serve for only a one
> year term – as selected by consensus of the Specifications Council – so that
> Specifications Council membership terms may be staggered).  There are no
> “term limits” for Specifications Council membership, and the Board or
> Eligible Editors, as applicable, may re-select the same persons to serve for
> more than one term (consecutive or otherwise). In the event that a
> Specifications Council member failed to participate in the discussion of two
> consecutive working group proposals, the member will be deemed to have
> resigned, and new specifications council members who are committed to
> participating in the process will be appointed to replace the member.
>
>
> *4.2  Review.*  The Specifications Council will review each proposal
> within 15 days after receipt and promptly provide notice to
> specs at openid.net of its recommendation to either accept or reject it,
> together with a brief statement of the rationale for its recommendation
> (including any findings or opinions by the Specifications Council regarding
> the criteria for rejection in the following clauses (a)-(d). If a proposal
> is rejected, it may be modified and resubmitted.  The reasons for rejection
> will be limited to:
>
> *(a)    *an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with §4.1);
>
> *(b)    *a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID
> community’s purpose;
>
> *(c)     *a determination that the proposed WG does not have sufficient
> support to succeed or to deliver proposed deliverables within projected
> completion dates; or
>
> *(d)    *a  determination that the proposal is likely to cause legal
> liability for the OIDF or others.
>
> If no recommendation was issued within 15 days after receipt, the Proposal
> is deemed to be accepted.
>
> When the Specifications Council rejects the proposal, the Proposers may
> submit the Proposal to a vote of the OIDF membership, in accordance with the
> voting procedures in §3. When the vote passes, the proposal is deemed to be
> accepted.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20100525/388e6c80/attachment-0001.html>