[OIDFSC] Updating the OpenID specs council

Wed Apr 2 23:54:02 UTC 2014

All eligible candidates other than Paul Madsen have indicated that they are willing to serve.

I would propose that, as editors, we add Tim, Chuck, and Ashish to replace Dave, Johnny, and Allen and that we ask the board to add John to replace Dick.  That would leave Naveen and Brian as eligible replacements if for some reason we need another member in the future.  Do people agree with this plan?

                                                            -- Mike

P.S.  Naveen, I still highly encourage you to involve yourself in the Native Applications work, as you have a lot of relevant experience there.  You don't have to be on the specs council to be active in a working group. :)

From: Chuck Mortimore [mailto:cmortimore at salesforce.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 12:48 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Ashish Jain; Naveen Agarwal; Brian Campbell; Paul Madsen; John Bradley; Marius Scurtescu; Paul Tarjan; andy.zmolek at enterproid.com; specs-council at openid.net; Don Thibeau
Subject: Re: Updating the OpenID specs council

Happy to serve as well.   ( sorry about the delay....snowboarding :) )

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>> wrote:
Chuck, Ashish, Naveen, Brian, and Paul - besides Tim and John, we still need two new members who are willing to serve.  Which of you would be willing?

Chuck and Ashish - I think it would be particularly good if you would serve, as there's already a Google representative and if John is selected, there's already a Ping representative.  Serving takes very little time.  What do you say?

                                                                -- Mike

From: John Bradley [mailto:ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:29 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Chuck Mortimore; Naveen Agarwal; Marius Scurtescu; Paul Tarjan; Brian Campbell; Paul Madsen; Ashish Jain; andy.zmolek at enterproid.com<mailto:andy.zmolek at enterproid.com>; specs-council at openid.net<mailto:specs-council at openid.net>; Don Thibeau
Subject: Re: Updating the OpenID specs council

I will accept if nominated.

John B.

On Mar 14, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>> wrote:

The current specs council<http://wiki.openid.net/w/page/12995236/Specifications%20Council> membership is:

*         Johnny Bufu - selected by the eligible editors
*         Breno de Medeiros  - selected by the eligible editors
*         Dick Hardt - selected by the board
*         Mike Jones - selected by the board
*         Nat Sakimura  - selected by the eligible editors
*         Allen Tom - selected by the eligible editors

We're currently short one member because David Recordon removed himself from the Specs Council in June 2012 and we never replaced him.  I propose that we fill the open seat with Tim Bray - the editor of the Account Chooser spec.  I'd spoken to him about the possibility and he's willing to serve.  Any objections?

Johnny, Allen, and Dick, I'll also add that none of you have been an active editor in the last two years (please correct me if I'm wrong!), so by the criteria in the process document (see below), you are no longer eligible editors.  Therefore, it's probably time to replace you on the specs council as well.  (Although I do encourage you to express your views on the current Mobile Connect Profile working group proposal before the specs council - even if it's to state that you have no views.)

It looks to me like the eligible editors currently are:
*         Nat Sakimura - Connect (already serving)
*         John Bradley - Connect, Native Applications
*         Mike Jones - Connect (already serving)
*         Breno de Medeiros - Connect (already serving)
*         Chuck Mortimore - Connect
*         Tim Bray - Account Chooser
*         Naveen Agarwal - Connect Session Management
*         Marius Scurtescu - Multiple Response Types (although inactive lately)
*         Paul Tarjan - Multiple Response Types (although inactive lately)
*         Brian Campbell - Form Post Response Mode
*         Paul Madsen - Native Applications
*         Ashish Jain - Native Applications
*         Andy Zmolek - Native Applications (although I've seen no working group messages from him)
Some of the Backplane Exchange contributors may also be eligible, but I don't have visibility into who the active editors were.

Of those on you who are eligible editors, who would be interested in serving?  Two of you will be selected by the other eligible editors and one by the board.  Also, if I've left somebody out, please let me know who and add them to the thread.

                                                                Thanks all,
                                                                -- Mike

As a reminder of the role of the specifications council, here are some of the relevant passages from theOpenID 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<mailto: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/20140402/6a7ce24e/attachment-0001.html>