On 17-Dec-08, at 2:29 PM, David Recordon wrote: > Or ideally the group would emerge with a draft of a spec along with > some form of consensus around it and thus be easier to write and have > a better informed scope statement. > > If we were to do this, what would it look like? > > 1) Some group of people decide they want to tackle a problem. They > email the specs@ mailing list with some sort of description of what > they want to do and we set them up with a mailing list like drafting- > <name>@openid.net. (I'd also have no problem in using Google Groups > for these since it's less maintenance and makes it easier for those > leading the work to manage.)
I'm fine with Google groups -- but we need to enforce membership and have IPR in place to participate > > 2) Group is created and it tries to stay away from calling their > document "OpenID <foo>" for the time being. how about OpenID-Proposal-<foo> > > 3) To post to the list, you must agree to the existing IPR policy so > everything around withdrawal and review periods of later stage drafts > remain the same. Is that an email or a executed form faxed in? The challenge for some people will be that they do not want what they consider unrelated IPR to be brought into a WG -- and since the scope is not really defined, they need to be able to opt out after scope is defined. I forget if that is in the IPR statements now. > > 4) At some point, one or more drafts in, the group decides to > formalize their WG. > 5) They write a charter/scope to submit along with their draft and an > accurate list of authors/contributors. > 6) Specs Council / membership approves their WG or decides that the > draft they've produced really doesn't fit into OpenID and works with > the group on either how to change that (e.g. more reuse) or helps them > move to another organization to finish their work. currently we require a membership vote to approve a WG do we not? > > 7) They use the rest of the process to publish an Implementor's Draft > and then in the end a Final Draft. and then a vote by the membership > > > This thus makes it much easier to get started and far more concrete > when the specs council is looking to recommend if work becomes a > working group or not. > > It doesn't fix the 4 months to finalize a spec, but I guess we tackle > that problem as groups start to hit it. (Which PAPE is already > starting to.) > > --David > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: > >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
