+1
On Mar 19, 2009, at 9:53 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
My hope is for an IPR policy and process that does the following two
things:
1) Produces "clean" intellectual property (i.e., specs that have
been non-asserted by the contributors, copyright license applied, etc)
2) Ensures appropriate use of the OpenID trademark
Neither of these two goals strictly require the pre-determined-
scope / working group model we follow today.
On the contrary, by placing the burden up front all we've done is
politicize technical work before it is even officially begins (or
worse, stalling it so long that it never begins). Specifications
aren't evaluated on technical merit after looking at a full draft;
they're judged before the ideas are even partially explored. Worse
this gives the appearance of an ownership over OpenID that I'm
almost certain was never intended by the original inventors of the
technology and supporters of the foundation.
As an alternative, I'd like to see us move to a much simpler and
more meritocratic model that says:
1) Anyone, member of the OIDF or not, can start working on an
OpenID specification, but they must do so only under a provisional
brand ("OpenID Experimental", or something)
2) In order for the specification to graduate and earn the
official "OpenID" trademark the completed specification must be:
2a) Ratified by membership vote
2b) Non-asserted and copyright-licensed in accordance with
OIDF IPR policy
Of course, the OIDF can offer tools and processes, such as an up-
front contributor license agreement and specification editorial
guidelines, to assist communities in successfully bringing a
specification to graduation. But beyond enforcing trademark and
ensuring IP cleanliness, I'm not sure we want the OIDF board to
assert more authority over the direction of the technology than that.
-DeWitt
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]>
wrote:
I also recollect that Nat's summary below is what was discussed and
decided.
Cheers,
Brian
==============
Brian Kissel
Cell: 503.866.4424
Fax: 503.296.5502
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 6:00 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Fwd: [OpenID Foundation] New Poll Opened
I do not think "take a look at the IPR Process in a holistic
perspective" was a consensus. To me, taking "at least a month" before
any concrete proposal would be too time consuming, since we have
already lost a quarter. There is a board approved 4 changes with
proposed text sitting there for a month, and to me, adding the 5th
one, which is Allen's proposal, is adequate. (Note, this change was
also incorporated in the current proposed text. A lawyer can review it
in a day max.) David opposed to that idea, so it was made an action
item among Don, David, and me to discuss and drive it.
That is the state of it.
=nat
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:17 AM, David Recordon <[email protected]>
wrote:
> This was discussed briefly by the Board yesterday during our
meeting and we
> plan to take a look at the IPR Process in a holistic perspective,
looking at
> the changes that can be made to address how hard it is to get
started.
>
> --David
>
> On Mar 19, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Martin Atkins wrote:
>
>> David Recordon wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Brett,
>>> There is a 14-day discussion period once the Specs Council has
approved
>>> the WG which occurs on the [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]
>
>>> mailing list. There was also a discussion on the same list
leading up to
>>> the Specs Council vote on the proposal.
>>> I think everyone agrees that there are other user interface
improvements
>>> to be made, though pop-ups are a good starting point. I think
we should
>>> address this once the working group is created and see if there
is consensus
>>> there to rename the specification being produced.
>>
>> Once again I find myself wondering why there is a vote to create
a working
>> group. This is especially perplexing in this case where you seem
to be
>> suggesting that after the group is formed it might decide to
change its
>> scope.
>>
>> Why can't we just let working groups be created and do their work
and then
>> do the vote on the finished specification itself rather than on
the plan to
>> create one?
>>
>> All the current setup seems to achieve is that folks do most of
the work
>> in other forums like the "step2" mailing list where the OpenID
community
>> can't necessarily see it, and then they just go through the
motions to
>> create the working group after most of the work has already been
done. This
>> seems counter-productive.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3949 (20090319) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3950 (20090320) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3950 (20090320) __________
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
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
