I agree. The combination of voting requirement for the creation of WG + the desire to keep IPR process clean (meaning no meaningful discussions prior to the formation of the WG) combine into a heavy process which slows down innovation.<div>
<br></div><div>Is there any reason why the formation of the WGs can't be streamlined?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Nat Sakimura <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com">sakimura@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Yes. I am personally OK for not having any vote but we MUST have the<br>
IPR agreements in place. Otherwise, people would not be able to use<br>
the resulting spec.<br>
<br>
Actually, having the members to vote for the creation of WG is an<br>
overkill, IMHO.<br>
It should just be doing at the specs approval stage instead, but<br>
currently, this<br>
heavy weight process is what we have, unfortunately.<br>
<br>
What is the sentiment of the community on skipping the initial membership vote?<br>
I personally think it suffices to prohibit WGs having "OpenID" in its<br>
name at the<br>
time of creation and allow the TM usages only after it was ratified as<br>
a standard.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
=nat<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Allen Tom <<a href="mailto:atom@yahoo-inc.com">atom@yahoo-inc.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I think the Specs Council has to vote to recommend the creation of the WG,<br>
> then it has to be put to vote.<br>
><br>
> It also looks like each person joining the WG will need to have his (of her)<br>
> employer sign an IPR Agreement explicitly saying that the employee is<br>
> allowed to work on that WG.<br>
><br>
> Allen<br>
><br>
> Chris Messina wrote:<br>
><br>
> I believe that the request to turn this discussion into a WG discussion was<br>
> made several days ago.<br>
> This is one area where we must make our procedures not impede progress!<br>
> Clearly people are excited and want to push this through; while the IPR<br>
> concern is a real one, the WG process should not work against getting things<br>
> done.<br>
> I see that, in order to create a working group [1], there must be a<br>
> membership vote of 7 days where at least 20% of the membership votes in<br>
> favor of the creation of the group.<br>
> It's unclear how we initiate this vote, or if it's already been requested.<br>
> Perhaps you could clear this up on the wiki page and also let us know where<br>
> we are in the process of creating the WG?<br>
> Chris<br>
> [1] <a href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working-Groups" target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working-Groups</a><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> user-experience mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:user-experience@openid.net">user-experience@openid.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/user-experience" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/user-experience</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> user-experience mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:user-experience@openid.net">user-experience@openid.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/user-experience" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/user-experience</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><div class="Ih2E3d">--<br>
Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
<a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/" target="_blank">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">user-experience mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:user-experience@openid.net">user-experience@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/user-experience" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/user-experience</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Breno de Medeiros<br><br>
</div>