Hi. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:40 AM, David Recordon <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: > > > 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 > > Good points. We need a process for dealing with the IPR docs. This > is ideally something the ED will do. They receive an IPR doc, upload > it somewhere, and add the person's name, affiliation, and email to a > web page which WG editors can refer to when processing membership. > ASF's page is at > http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejim/committers.html> > . > > > >> 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> > > Sure, just some clear naming convention that won't confuse adopters. > > > >> 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? > > I think the form currently needs to be faxed or scanned and emailed. Or handed in person, which I did in the iiw2008a. > > > > > 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. > > I'd think these people wouldn't participate in this earlier work if > they're uncomfortable doing so without a scope, though also reading > the IPR Policy the withdrawal provision might already be enough to > work. Basically, as long as these groups don't publish Implementor > Drafts or a Final Specification, then contributors are allowed to > withdraw given seven days written notice, would not have any > obligations around patents, and would remain subject to the copyrights > section. But of course, if that happens, the WG must identify what IPR infringement they were making. > > > > >> 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? > > Yes, oversight not including that versus explicitly looking to not > include the step. That said, shortening the ~30 days here would be > nice. I also wonder if the membership vote is actually effective > given how it is currently designed with quorum and a simple majority. > It is ineffective and not needed, I think. It is better to check afterwards than before. Right now, we have three check points: 1. Implementor's draft, 2. Final spec., 3. Market adoption. That should be enough. To me, 3. is the most important one. > > > >> 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 > > Yes, I don't propose changing the process for publishing Implementors > Drafts or the Final Specification at this time. As far as I can tell, > this is: > > Implementors Draft: > - WG comes to consensus to publish an Implementors Draft > - 45 day IPR review period starts aimed at contributors > - The OIDF board has 30 days (within the 45) to make sure the > Implementors Draft won't "create untenable legal liability for OIDF or > the Board" and that it is not outside of the WG's scope. > - (It seems there is also written in a membership vote here, though > it doesn't make sense and I'm guessing is an extra copy/paste.) > > Final Specification: > - WG comes to consensus to publish the Final Specification after at > least one Implementors Draft > - 60 day IPR review period starts aimed at contributors > - The OIDF board has 30 days (within the 45) to make sure the > Implementors Draft won't "create untenable legal liability for OIDF or > the Board" and that it is not outside of the WG's scope. > - 14 day notice period of an OIDF member vote to approve the Final > Specification As to these votings are concerned, would individual members count too? I think it is a good move to try to get more non-tech normal people start joining the foundaiton, but at the same time, having them involved in the voting of this sort is kind of hard... -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
