This motion has been seconded by Mike, Raj, Eric, Brian, and Gary. Therefore we're starting the 7 day notification and discussion clock for an online board-only vote. There will be a separate vote for each motion.
If anyone has suggestions on how to ensure that the discussion and voting process complies with our bylaws, is fair, open, and efficient, please provide your input. Given that board meetings are only every six weeks and that historically it's been hard to get a large percentage of our board members to participate on calls, I'd like to suggest that we try to do more routine administrative votes via our board voting tool. If, during the notification and discussion period, we determine that the issues are too involved or complex to adequately decide via an online vote, we can always cancel the online vote and defer the vote until the next regularly scheduled board meeting. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? One thing that I haven't seen is how long we should keep the polls open for each vote. For the board nominations and elections, it was 2 weeks, which made sense. However, one of our goals in 2009 is to be more timely in our execution. So I'd like to suggest that the default period for an online board vote is 7 days or until the required majority has been reached. For example, on the International Liaison vote, we already have 10 yes votes and zero no votes in one day, so I believe that this motion has passed. Looking forward to feedback from others. Cheers, Brian ============== Brian Kissel Cell: 503.866.4424 Fax: 503.296.5502 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raj Mata Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process +1 ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Sachs Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process Also agreed, thx Nat On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Mike Jones <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: These motions all make sense to me - particularly since creation of the PAPE working group was delayed for so long due to specs council issues and I'm watching the same play out with the current proposals. Having been there when we came up with the idea of the specs council, the idea behind it was for it to provide useful feedback cutting across the different specifications while proposals were being discussed and to make a timely recommendation once a proposal was formally submitted - NOT to be an impediment to the creation of working groups or a hurdle that proposals had to clear. Thanks for taking the time to write these up, Nat. They should make the specs council reality more closely match the intent, and substantially improve the present situation. Thanks, -- Mike From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Brian Kissel Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:17 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process Nat, thank you for your proactive efforts to help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our spec process. As I understand it, the board needs to vote on your motions, then present to the membership for approval. I second all four of Nat's motions below for a vote by the board. Hopefully we'll have the board polling tool working this week, so look for an email notification for pending board votes on each of these motions. If others would like to discuss Nat's proposals before the vote, please provide your thoughts to the group. Cheers, Brian ============== Brian Kissel Cell: 503.866.4424 Fax: 503.296.5502 From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:01 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process 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/ __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3768 (20090115) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3769 (20090115) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3769 (20090115) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3772 (20090116) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
