+1. Sounds reasonable for now; gets things us unstuck. Chris
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:56 PM, David Recordon <[email protected]> wrote: > How about we include these two changes, but not the third that I proposed, > given that the first ties into the creation of new working groups and the > second seems like an oversight rather than anything else. > > 1) Drastically shortening or removing the notification period of a > membership vote to create a new Working Group once the Specs Council has > reccomended it. > 2) Clarifying that a Working Group must produce an Implementor's Draft > before a Final Draft given the IPR implications of not doing so. > > --David > > On Feb 3, 2009, at 8:43 PM, Mike Jones wrote: > >> Thinking about it, I'd rather that if we're making several sets of >> unrelated changes to the IPR documents, that the members get to vote on them >> independently, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it big ball of changes. As >> such, I'd advocate Nat producing a change-tracked Word doc from the current >> process docs that can be voted on separately from other, less fully baked, >> changes that may come in the future. >> >> -- Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Chris Messina >> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:38 PM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Spec Process Improvement Motions for >> Membership Vote >> >> Grumble. Sounds complicated. >> >> If these changes could be made in a fairly straight-forward, up-down >> vote, then yeah, I'd advocate for the incremental, piece-meal >> approach. >> >> Given all that's involved (and I'm wondering if we'll ever begin that >> process unless someone is specifically assigned those tasks that you >> described, David), it does seem like an all-at-once approach is >> somewhat more prudent. >> >> I guess the bylaws are in place to prevent arbitrary or short-sighted >> changes, but clearly they do impede certain kinds of progress! >> >> Chris >> >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:40 AM, David Recordon <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I see the downside is that making any chage to the IPR docs is not a >>> normal >>> Membership vote as we've done in the past. Rather, any changes to the >>> IPR >>> Docs require a 21 day notice period, multiple electronic notices to the >>> "legal" contacts provided on a myriad of paper and electronic forms we've >>> collected, a blog post at the beginning of the 21 day period, the ability >>> for a Member to denote a proxy voter (e.g. allow me to let Six Apart's >>> lawyer login and vote under the Six Apart membership for this vote only >>> via >>> our software), and either a subermajority vote of 60% of our Membership >>> with >>> a majority of the Board or a supermajority of 30% of our Membership with >>> a >>> supermajority of the Board. >>> So, given that before we can hold this vote we need to (beyond drafting >>> the >>> notices and blog post): >>> 1) Find all of the legal contacts that we've been provided over the past >>> year and a half >>> 2) Modify our voting software to allow a Member to denote a proxy voter >>> for >>> this one vote >>> This should all happen before the 21 day notice period because if on the >>> 22nd day we're not ready to vote, we'll have to issue a new notice period >>> and start over again. >>> --David >>> On Feb 2, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Brian Kissel wrote: >>> >>> David, >>> >>> While the comprehensive approach might be compelling, wouldn't it be >>> better >>> to make incremental progress on the 4 motions that Nat has already >>> submitted >>> that have been approved by the board. The risk here is that we delay >>> straightforward changes by tying them with ones that are still being >>> developed. Shouldn't the members get to make an up-down vote on >>> independent >>> sets of changes independently, rather than having to wait for other >>> possible >>> changes. What is the downside to pursuing these sequentially? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Brian >>> ============== >>> Brian Kissel >>> Cell: 503.866.4424 >>> Fax: 503.296.5502 >>> >>> >>> From: David Recordon [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 1:50 PM >>> To: Brian Kissel >>> Cc: Nat Sakimura; [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> I think the immediate next step is having a lawyer involved (as needed) >>> to >>> make the appropriate changes to the IPR Process document before the 21 >>> day >>> period can commence. As I said in a previous email, considering how much >>> effort is designed into changing the IPR Policy or Process, I think it is >>> worthwhile to do this once rather than multiple times this year. The two >>> items which I know are currently being discussed which I would like to >>> see >>> rolled into this vote are: >>> 1) Drastically shortening or removing the notification period of a >>> membership vote to create a new Working Group once the Specs Council has >>> reccomended it. >>> 2) Clarifying if a Working Group must produce an Implementor's Draft >>> before >>> a Final Draft given the IPR implications of not doing so. >>> 3) Resolving and adding language to allow organizations like MySpace AOL >>> and >>> Plaxo - who have corporate parents - to contribute to Working Groups. >>> >>> I would thus ask that the Board re-charter an IPR Committee to resolve >>> these >>> issues as expeditiously as possible thus resulting in *one* membership >>> vote >>> to ideally approve all of these changes versus a series of votes over the >>> course of the year. All three of these additional items are changes that >>> have been discussed and many have proposals on the table. >>> >>> --David >>> >>> ----- "Brian Kissel" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> Guys, are we clear on next steps to move Nat's 4 proposals on for a full >>> membership vote and are those activities underway? What is the ETA for >>> being able to start the 21 day notification process? >>> >>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Brian >>> >>> ============== >>> Brian Kissel >>> Cell: 503.866.4424 >>> Fax: 503.296.5502 >>> >>>> >>> From: Brian Kissel >>>> >>>> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:46 AM >>>> To: '[email protected]' >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Spec Process Improvement Motions for Membership Vote >>> >>> Not following you David. I thought your recommendation was that the >>> exact >>> wording had to be done before beginning the 21 day notification, so that >>> was >>> what I was asking Nat to provide when ready. I'm also working with >>> Refresh >>> Media to see if we have an official mailing list for all members we can >>> use >>> per the email from Mike Jones below. I'm sure Nat would love to work >>> with >>> you for what goes on the OIDF homepage, Nat? Just trying to keep this >>> process moving per section 3.4 and the dialog below. >>> >>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Brian >>> >>> ============== >>> Brian Kissel >>> Cell: 503.866.4424 >>> Fax: 503.296.5502 >>> >>>> >>> From: David Recordon [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> >>>> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:39 AM >>>> To: Brian Kissel >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - >>>> results are in >>> >>> I take it that you're ignoring what I said and not even acknowledging it >>> with a direct response? >>> >>> As to emailing the members, we need to email legal contacts as well if >>> the >>> members provided them which I'm unsure how the membership tool >>> currently captures. We do however have legal contacts for many of the >>> companies that signed contribution agreements for working groups which >>> the >>> ones I know of can be found >>> in http://openid.net/ipr/Non-Assertion-Agreement/executed/. >>> >>> I'm also happy to help draft/edit this blog post given that it is >>> valuable >>> to tie into a larger narrative about how the IPR work we did has since >>> influenced other communities in a major way. >>> >>> --David >>> >>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Brian Kissel wrote: >>> >>> Nat, please let me know when you have the wording completed so we can >>> post >>> on the OIDF homepage and send out an email to all OIDF members for the >>> notification period before the vote. >>> >>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Brian >>> >>> ============== >>> Brian Kissel >>> Cell: 503.866.4424 >>> Fax: 503.296.5502 >>> >>>> >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf >>> Of David Recordon >>>> >>>> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 1:05 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - >>>> results are in >>> >>> I believe that Mike was objecting to starting the 21 day clock without >>> actual text changes in the document. I would advise that this work be >>> delegated to the IPR Committee (if we even still have one) and for them >>> to >>> come back to the board once there is actual blessed text to review. >>> >>> I still believe that given a 21 day review period coupled with the high >>> degree of notifications and voting required to change the IPR Policy and >>> Process that taking an extra few days to round up any other changes is >>> truly >>> the best path forward. We know this Process is broken as we've tried to >>> use >>> it a few times and we have groups like "Step2" creating new work outside >>> of >>> the OpenID Foundation because our Process is too complex and difficult to >>> navigate. Let's fix that instead of trying to ignore the entire set of >>> problems for expediency especially when the Specs Council is now actually >>> starting to work again. >>> >>> --David >>> >>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Brian Kissel wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> Sorry if I wasn't clear, I only meant to start the 21 day clock for the 4 >>> spec process improvement motions that Nat made that have already been >>> approved by the board. The exact wording for those motions are the same >>> as >>> they word for the board votes. >>> >>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Brian >>> >>> ============== >>> Brian Kissel >>> Cell: 503.866.4424 >>> Fax: 503.296.5502 >>> >>>> >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf >>> Of Mike Jones >>>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:02 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - >>>> results are in >>> >>> Yes, I am opposed. The notification must include the precise proposed >>> text >>> changes to the IPR documents, preferably as tracked changes to the >>> approved >>> originals, so the lawyers know exactly what changes are being considered >>> to >>> our IPR policy and process. Until those precise changes are drafted and >>> available, we can not start the 21-day legal review process. >>> >>> -- Mike >>> >>>> >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf >>> Of Brian Kissel >>>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:15 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - >>>> results are in >>> >>> Given that we need a 21 day notification for a membership vote, I'd >>> suggest >>> we start that official notification now. Anyone opposed to that? >>> >>> Nat, can you create the posting for the home page of the OIDF website, >>> which >>> is also required? >>> >>> 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 29, 2009 3:58 PM >>>> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - >>>> results are in >>> >>> Hmmm. While this option sounds attractive, we might want to take two >>> phased >>> approach. >>>> >>>> I have just made motions for the urgent things. If we start requirement >>>> gathering at this stage, it will delay these changes. >>>> >>>> So, my proposal is to do what the board vote approved in parallel to the >>>> longer term ammendment with requirement gatherings. (BTW, there are >>>> bunch of >>>> things that I want to list under this mid-term project.) >>>> >>>> I will draft the ammendment to the Process document this weekend. >>>> >>>> One of the motion is unrelated to the Process document, but to assign >>>> the >>>> committee liaison the power to take an initiative to facilitate and >>>> advance >>>> the specs process. i.e., David is now officially empowered to chase down >>>> the >>>> specs council members as well as to help out the proposers so that the >>>> process goes as quick as it can. >>>> >>>> I have not seen much progress on OpenID+OAuth hybrid and CX specs >>>> council >>>> process. I hope this will improve the situation. >>>> >>>> =nat >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:10 AM, David Recordon <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> Given that there are some other things we'd like to amend to the IPR >>> Process, should we try to capture the entire list of changes we wish to >>> make >>> so we only need to do this once? >>> >>> >>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Brian Kissel wrote: >>> >>> >>> OK thanks Mike. Do we have a "members" email address to start the >>> membership notification period? >>> >>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Brian >>> >>> ============== >>> Brian Kissel >>> Cell: 503.866.4424 >>> Fax: 503.296.5502 >>> >>>> >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf >>> Of Mike Jones >>>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:55 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - >>>> results are in >>> >>> We can not amend the process doc without a membership vote, and the >>> following criteria being met, as per section 3.4 of the process: >>> >>> * 21 day notice period >>> * Multiple electronic notice required (if the OIDF member has >>> provided multiple addresses), including to a "legal contact," if provided >>> * Prominent posting (at least 21 days in advance of the >>> beginning >>> of the voting period) on homepage of OIDF website >>> * 7 day voting period after end of notice period (if vote is not >>> taken at a properly-noticed meeting) >>> * OIDF members may designate a proxy from the member's >>> registered >>> OpenID identifier specifying the designated proxy's OpenID identifier >>> * Any approved change is prospective only >>> * Approval of a change requires either of the following: >>> Approval Option 1 >>> o Quorum of greater of 60% of OIDF membership or 30 OIDF members (no >>> bypass option) and >>> o Supermajority vote of those constituting a quorum, plus a majority >>> concurrence by the OIDF Board >>> Approval Option 2 >>> o Quorum of greater of 30% of OIDF membership or 30 OIDF members (no >>> bypass option) and >>> o Majority vote of those constituting a quorum, plus a supermajority >>> concurrence by the entire OIDF Board (where "absents" and "abstains" >>> count >>> as "no" votes) >>> Any change to the IPR Policy or Processes will not be effective until 21 >>> days after approval, during which time then-current Contributors may >>> withdraw in accordance with the IPR Policy or Processes as they existed >>> prior to the change >>> >>> Nat could produce an updated draft of the doc (which should have tracked >>> changes on relative to the approved version) for legal membership review >>> prior to the vote, but none of this can go into effect until the >>> membership >>> vote has occurred and met the criteria above. >>> >>> -- Mike >>> >>>> >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf >>> Of Brian Kissel >>>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:29 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] 4 spec process improvement board votes - >>>> results are in >>> >>> Thanks to everyone for your timely voting. While the polls are still >>> open, >>> all 4 of the motions made by Nat have passed. Nat can you take care of >>> modifying the OpenID process document? >>> >>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Brian >>> >>> ============== >>> Brian Kissel >>> Cell: 503.866.4424 >>> Fax: 503.296.5502 >>> >>>> >>> From: Brian Kissel >>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:24 PM >>>> To: '[email protected]' >>>> Subject: RE: 4 spec process improvement board votes - please go to the >>>> website and vote >>> >>> Hello All, just a reminder to go to the website and vote on these 4 >>> motions. To date we only have 5 votes and we need 7 for a majority >>> decision. >>> >>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Brian >>> >>> ============== >>> Brian Kissel >>> Cell: 503.866.4424 >>> Fax: 503.296.5502 >>> >>>> >>> From: Brian Kissel >>>> >>>> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 1:16 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: 4 spec process improvement board votes >>> >>> Hello OIDF board members, >>> >>> The four spec process improvement motions made by Nat Sakimura and >>> seconded >>> by Brian Kissel have now completed the seven day notification and >>> discussion >>> period. Each motion is now available for board voting on the OIDF >>> polling >>> tool. A simple majority vote by 7 or more board members is required for >>> approval on each motion. The vote ends on January 31st, 2009. >>> >>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Brian >>> >>> ___________ >>> >>> Brian Kissel >>> CEO, JanRain - OpenID-enable your websites, customers, partners, and >>> employees >>> 5331 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 375, Portland, OR 97239 >>> Email: [email protected] Cell: 503.866.4424 Fax: 503.296.5502 >>> >>>> >>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>>> signature database 3796 (20090124) __________ >>>> >>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>>> >>>> http://www.eset.com >>>> >>>> >>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>>> signature database 3805 (20090127) __________ >>>> >>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>>> >>>> http://www.eset.com >>>> >>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>>> signature database 3805 (20090127) __________ >>>> >>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>>> >>>> http://www.eset.com >>>> >>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>>> signature database 3811 (20090129) __________ >>>> >>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>>> >>>> http://www.eset.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>> signature >>> database 3811 (20090129) __________ >>> >>> >>> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.eset.com >>> >>>> >>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>>> signature database 3811 (20090129) __________ >>>> >>>> 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 3811 (20090129) __________ >>>> >>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>>> >>>> http://www.eset.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> board mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > -- 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
