[OIDFSC] Updating the OpenID specs council
Chuck Mortimore
cmortimore at salesforce.com
Thu Apr 3 03:55:54 UTC 2014
Works for me as well.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Brian Campbell
<bcampbell at pingidentity.com>wrote:
> WFM
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Breno de Medeiros <breno at google.com>wrote:
>
>> +1 for editor nominations
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>> J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *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>
>>> 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]
>>> *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;
>>> 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>
>>> 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 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --Breno
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20140402/52d6355c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the specs-council
mailing list