I've uploaded a screencast that demonstrates how to create a new page using the template that I created:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/18443/new-page.mov Incidentally, if any of you would like to create templated pages, just create a page as you normally would and then give it a tag called 'template'. Chris On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> wrote: > Skitch.com registration was rather nice. Only, if they could accept my > OpenID as a screen name, that was perfect. > > Having said that, I could not figure out how to create the template... > I would love to learn. > > =nat > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 > > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > http://www.sakimura.org/en/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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
