Inline...
On Dec 17, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> 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.
It doesn't necessarily mean that the WG is infringing any IP. It
should probably however be noted somewhere a list of who has withdrawn.
>> 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.
Yes, market adoption is the most important. That said, blindly trying
to get market adoption by using the OpenID brand isn't a good thing. :)
>> 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?
Yes, these are for all OIDF members.
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...
Agreed. I'd wager that most don't care.
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
