Excellent Chris, great start, thanks. Cheers,
Brian ============== Brian Kissel Cell: 503.866.4424 Fax: 503.296.5502 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Messina Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 2:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process - notification of 7 day discussion period I have created a template that can be tweaked that could be used for this, and other votes: https://openid.pbwiki.com/Call-for-Vote When you create a new page for a vote, you can use this template by choosing it from the list of templates: http://skitch.com/factoryjoe/bbpqa/openid-wiki-create-a-new-page If you have ideas to improve the template, please do so. I took my best stab at it, but it could definitely use some massaging. It might be useful for Nat to create a new page for this current vote and fill out the template to see if we're missing anything. Chris On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > 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]] On Behalf > Of Brian Kissel > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:17 AM > To: [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]] On Behalf > Of Nat Sakimura > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:01 AM > To: [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] 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], 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] > 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 > > -- Chris Messina Citizen-Participant & Open Web Advocate-at-Large factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org citizenagency.com # vidoop.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
