I have to agree with Nat.

The real problem here, as I see it, is that the current specs council members 
appear to be reluctant to actually fulfill their duties for timely review of 
specification proposals.

David or Scott, can you please create the (publicly readable) 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> list so we can get on 
with this discussion and unblock the process?

If we're going to change the process at all, in my view, it would be to make it 
clear that if the specs council hasn't acted within N days of a formal 
proposal, that the proposal can proceed to a membership vote without the specs 
council having rendered an opinion.  I would suggest that the new board take up 
a proposal along those lines.

The specs council held up creation of the PAPE working group by multiple months 
earlier this year.  It's doing the same thing with the current proposals.  As I 
see it, the specs council members should either commit to timely fulfillment of 
their duties, or resign, allowing members to be appointed who will respond in a 
timely fashion.

The current specs council members are listed at 
http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID_Foundation/SC and are Johnny Bufu, Brad 
Fitzpatrick, Dick Hardt, Josh Hoyt, David Recordon, Allen Tom, and myself.

                                                                Thanks,
                                                                -- Mike

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Nat Sakimura
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:46 PM
To: [email protected]; OpenID Specs Mailing List; Dick Hardt; Allen Tom; Josh 
Hoyt
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [OpenID board] Please process the WG proposals on the table (WAS The 
Specs Council and Process)

Well. Very good discussion. I am glad that I started the original thread.

At the same time, I would like the spec council to issue overdue 
recommendations, especially for Contract Exchange. It has been sitting there 
for a long time now. (By now, the actual works should have started.)

As I believe, though the scope may seems a bit wide, the WG scope being wider 
than what it really needs to is not a bad thing. WG can always narrow the scope 
without any IPR consideration, but it is virtually impossible to widen the 
scope afterwards.

=nat
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board

Reply via email to