I take it you didn't have to personally "figure out the IPR afterwards"...
OAuth took 8 months to get the IRP done. OpenID 2.0 involved a lot of work. We need to fix the process. There is nothing wrong with approving WGs fast and dissolving them if they are no longer active/needed. What we might want to consider is a pre-WG stage where all the IPR rules apply but it is not yet an official WG until after the publication of the first draft - so it gives people a place and some time to work out the feasibility of their work. But for IPR purposes, *IF* the work is turned into a WG, all the contributions made prior are still in. EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Martin Atkins > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:11 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] The Specs Council and Process (WAS: Re: > Executive Committee meeting 12/18/2008 ...) > > David Recordon wrote: > > > > I know that I was intimately involved in creating this process but > the > > more that I see it in practice, the more that I know we must change > it > > and understand why new innovative work like the OpenID and OAuth > > Hybrid occurs outside the purview of the OpenID Foundation. (And > yes, > > I understand how I'm being a bit hypocritical by saying that getting > > started should be easier yet only for the work that a core group > feels > > fits into what OpenID is which can be done in many different ways.) > > > > I guess my point is that we need to make it much easier to get > > started, though make sure it is hard for something to be called > > "OpenID" when it clearly doesn't use existing OpenID technology or > > does something wildly different. Right now our process is loaded up > > at the start and at the end, which means that people are going and > > starting elsewhere. > > > > Almost all of the proposed working groups are really just posted as a > formality because the specs are already being drafted by folks outside > of the working group framework. > > None of the specs that we've actually managed to get published were > started under the OIDF "working group" regime, and as far as I can tell > none have actually been successfully completed under it. > > Let's just write the specs and figure out the IPR afterwards. This > working group approval bullshit isn't productive. > > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
