Oops... On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> wrote:
> I somehow had an impression that an implementer's draft has to go through > membership vote as well, but apparently it is not. (I probably got the > impression that because WG recommends it to be an implementer's draft. If it > just recommends, there has to be a body that accepts and endorse it.) > > My intension was that "OpenIDT" can be used only after the membership vote. Typo: "OpenID(TM)" , > > > I will revise the motion accordingly later. and not "OpenIDT". Also, this is pending on what other board members feel. > > I have other comments on the user interface etc. portion, but this is not > directly relevant to this specific topic, so I will defer to elsewhere that > I will not conflate this topic with others. > > =nat > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "David Recordon" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 12:25 PM > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process > > Considering that an Implementors Draft is a stage determined by the >> Working Group, I don't believe that it should then be able to call itself >> "OpenID". The tension we're seeing here was discussed about a month ago >> where right now there are nearly no hurdles toward the end of the process to >> make sure that a specification really is "OpenID". Instead, we're seeing >> the Specs Council place that hurdle at the beginning. >> >> So, yes this process needs to become easier to get started but it isn't >> going to do get the community closer to our goals of simplicity, user >> experience (which the CX proposal explicitly states is out of scope!) and >> mainstream adoption if any specification becomes OpenID. >> >> --David >> >> On Jan 15, 2009, at 12:01 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> After having worked through PAPE 1.0 spec process, as well as some other >> spec proposals, I noticed that there can be several things that we can do to >> smooth the process. I think they were worthwhile excercises to find out >> these glitches. >> >> Followings are the proposed motions that I would like the board to >> consider. There are two types: one that can take effect immediately, and one >> that requires board and membership voting. >> >> I. For immediate implementation of the current process: >> >> One of the obstacles that we have found during the process was that it was >> kind of hard to get the specs council to deliver the recommendation in a >> timely fashion. It has seen some improvement recently, but we want to make >> sure to continue it. Thus, I would like to propose the following: >> >> BE IT RESOLVED that the OIDF Committee Liason is directed to act as the >> coordinator for the specification council so that specification council >> create a recommendation for the membership about a formal working group >> proposal within 15 days of the complete proposal being circulated on >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> to comply to the current OpenID >> process. >> >> >> II. Improvements of curent porcess >> >> As a longer term solution, I would like to propose the following three >> motions. The first two are to make sure the timely and effective response >> from the specs council, and the last one is to protect the OpenID(TM) as >> well as to make it easier to create a WG so that all the discussion will be >> done inside the WG and the output is IPR clean. >> >> BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to >> amend the OpenID process document so that should the specifications council >> not create a recommendation for the membership about a formal working group >> proposal within 15 days of the complete proposal being circulated on >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, then the proposal may proceed >> to a membership vote for approval. >> >> BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to >> amend the OpenID process document so that should specs council members not >> participate in the discussion of two consecutive working group proposals, >> they will be deemed to have resigned, and new specs council members who are >> committed to participating in the process will be appointed to replace them. >> >> BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed to >> amend the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft may claim OpenID >> trademark until it is ratified to be an implementor's draft status or full >> specification status. >> >> Please note that these consitute the core decision for IPR and process, so >> it will have to go through the membership vote as well after creating the >> actual errata. >> >> Cheers, >> >> =nat >> >> -- >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >> http://www.sakimura.org/en/ >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
