Sounds like a lighter way of getting a WG started is what is needed so that people can get together to discuss the problem without having to write up a scope document -- since the scope often shifts as people get together and talk about it.
So how about we add an earlier stage to the WG -- the formation stage -- at the end of that stage there may or may not be a scope that has been created. If there is a scope document, it is put up for approval per the current process. Once approved, the WG is in the specification stage. -- Dick On 17-Dec-08, at 12:23 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > Well, it doesn't go all the way to the book-end approach we're > taking with OWF. This is just a slight simplification of the current > process. > > The OIDF requires upfront scope approved by the foundation to create > a WG. The approval process is taking too long and meanwhile, people > are writing specs elsewhere. Those specs are in IPR limbo and needs > cleanup if they to eventually enter a WG or have a different IPR > policy attached. > > So my suggestion is simple. Follow the same IPR policy as you have > today for pre-WG work, meaning, write a clear scope and have some > form of discussion among those interested in participation. Create a > mailing list (or designate an existing one) for that work, and apply > the IPR policy *as-if* this is an official WG. Once the WG is ready > to publish its first draft, that draft + scope (with possible > changes) is submitted for an actual WG creation. > > If a WG is created, the work continues and the IPR license is > already in place. If the WG is not created, the parties involved can > continue as they choose. > > All I am really suggesting is to move the WG approval to after the > first draft, but other than that, keep everything else the same. > > EHL > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of David Recordon >> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:52 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] The Specs Council and Process (WAS: Re: >> Executive Committee meeting 12/18/2008 ...) >> >> Yeah, I don't think IPR per se is the roadblock, but the process that >> we've created chosen to ensure that IPR isn't an issue is. Mart is >> however correct that most of the current working group proposals are >> more or less taking a spec draft that is already written, turning it >> into a WG, and then having the non-asserts happen at the end >> implicitly with the review periods by the WG members versus >> explicitly >> as was done by OpenID 2.0 and OAuth 1.0. >> >> So, I think that Mart, Eran, and Dick are all correct in what they've >> said in this thread. >> >> Eran, I'm intrigued by your pre-WG idea. How would you see it >> actually work? Sounds a bit like what we've been talking about for >> the Open Web Foundation. >> >> --David >> >> On Dec 17, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Dick Hardt wrote: >> >>> >>> On 17-Dec-08, at 11:28 AM, Martin Atkins wrote: >>> >>>> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: >>>>> I take it you didn't have to personally "figure out the IPR >>>>> afterwards"... >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's actually my point. There are lots of folks for whom the IPR >>>> stuff >>>> isn't a concern for one reason or another. Those folks shouldn't be >>>> prevented from getting on with stuff while those who *do* care >>>> about >>>> IPR >>>> are figuring it out. >>>> >>>> That's exactly what happened with OpenID 2.0. Lots of folks had it >>>> implemented long before the IPR was done. >>>> >>>> If I author a spec then I'm quite happy to sign an IPR non-assert >>>> where >>>> necessary, but the current process is far heavier than that and >> isn't >>>> really helping anyone because folks are just writing and >> implementing >>>> specs outside of the IPR framework because the IPR framework stops >>>> them >>>> actually getting any work done. >>> >>> It is MUCH more effort to figure out the IPR afterwards. >>> >>> IPR is NOT the roadblock in creating WGs. As David mentions, the >>> process is currently far to heavy. We need to make it simpler and >>> easily understood. >>> >>> -- Dick >>> _______________________________________________ >>> board mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
