That's great! Thanks!
=nat On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Chris Messina <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
