Setting Course

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

I am going to break this into multiple posts on the public list but wanted to first give the board an outline of what I have in mind. I have been thinking about what the foundation needs to do in next 12 months to start delivering on its promise. I also had private conversation with many people and received positive feedback about the general outline.

The goal of the foundation is to enable communities to develop open specifications. Within that goal are the implicit requirements that these specification will be clear from any IPR issues, developed in an open environment, and win adoption. The comparison to Open Source is extremely valuable because from the beginning we set to do to technical specification what the Open Source world has done to source code.

-- Mission

We need to better define the mission of the foundation and limit it for the next year with specific deliverables. Unless we get to a point where communities can start using OWF tools to create specs, we will accomplish nothing. We need real feedback to improve our process and tools and that can only come from interacting with active communities. And we need to start defining the OWF in terms of what it is, not what it is not.

-- Frameworks

I would like to see the foundation develop two software frameworks:

* Specification development tools - an integrated application/service for developing specifications, including issue tracking, consensus calls, change management, mailing list, and IPR management.

* Foundation management - an application for managing the daily work of the legal entity, running votes, elections, notices to members, etc.

We have so far failed to find a suitable open source solution to use for running the foundation. I have spend the past few months in more than a part time capacity manually running the foundation which is not sustainable. We need to build a simple tool to take care of these items. This is something many other foundations can use. OpenID started building something but I am not sure how mature it is.

I have initially objected to the OWF actually building spec work infrastructure but have come to the conclusion that the fine details of creating a specification, with the need for consensus, IPR, issues tracking, etc. is simply unmanageable without some framework. While this will make the OWF a lot closer to a standards body, it will only do so at the infrastructure level, not at the political - policy setting - level.

-- Legal work

We need to ramp up our legal work and we need to change the way to operate because we are going in circles and not getting closer to building consensus. The problem in my view is the lack of separation between individuals representing personal or corporate interest, the role of committee chair which should focus on driving consensus without getting too involved in pushing for a personal agenda, and the role of legal authors writing document drafts based on ideas and consensus.

This is not a criticism against anyone (and if it was, it would be directed at every member of the legal committee, myself included). I think we are unlikely to stumble upon new resources or able individuals to come and help move this effort forward. It is time to consider looking for legal services that are not a party to the negotiation and can draft documents based on ideas as well as provide legal advise that is not biased by other obligations.

-- Resources

Are have failed to accomplish much as a purely volunteer organization. After a year we have very little to show for. I am also going to make a frustrating (but self-serving) observation that in most cases, unless I personally take care of something, it just doesn’t happen. I have posted a list of tasks which received very little interest, and even that has yet to materialize into any visible outcome.

I think we need to consider raising funds and set to accomplish most of the goals above with paid professionals. We should stay focused on specific deliverables and keep the foundation itself as lean as possible, but we are simply not getting anything done. And no, having a wiki will not magically get work done. If people wanted to put in time, the lack of a wiki would not have stopped them.

-- Roles

We have three specific leadership roles needed:

* A public face for the foundation, someone to speak on behalf of the foundation, represent it in public, and promote its image and goals.
* Someone to run the foundation itself and manage the daily operations of building and funding the above list.
* Chairperson to run the board and drive motions, decisions, and consensus.

This can be all one person, or three (or two). We can either decide how to split the roles based on structure or based on who steps forward to fill which role. It will probably be more effective to ask who is willing/interested/nominated to fill each role and then decide how to split them across titles and individuals.

We also need a (re)new Treasurer and Secretary.

---

This is the general outline. There is a lot in here to think about but I hope this will help get the conversation going. I will give the board a few days to think about this before I post each item on the public list for a wide discussion.

EHL

[Scott Wilson]

Comments below...

On 1 Sep 2009, at 21:21, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

I am going to break this into multiple posts on the public list but wanted to first give the board an outline of what I have in mind. I have been thinking about what the foundation needs to do in next 12 months to start delivering on its promise. I also had private conversation with many people and received positive feedback about the general outline.

The goal of the foundation is to enable communities to develop open specifications. Within that goal are the implicit requirements that these specification will be clear from any IPR issues, developed in an open environment, and win adoption. The comparison to Open Source is extremely valuable because from the beginning we set to do to technical specification what the Open Source world has done to source code.

Very clearly stated there - excellent.

-- Mission

We need to better define the mission of the foundation and limit it for the next year with specific deliverables. Unless we get to a point where communities can start using OWF tools to create specs, we will accomplish nothing. We need real feedback to improve our process and tools and that can only come from interacting with active communities. And we need to start defining the OWF in terms of what it is, not what it is not.

Again, great stuff.

-- Frameworks

I would like to see the foundation develop two software frameworks:

* Specification development tools - an integrated application/service for developing specifications, including issue tracking, consensus calls, change management, mailing list, and IPR management.

I'm still not convinced this is what is needed - a community can quite easily do this already.

The two fairly small spec communities I work with already have web infrastructure (forums, blogs, wikis, mailing lists), what they really need is a rulebook. 

Note that the ASF infrastructure doesn't really enforce its rules either. There is a lot of procedure-related discussions on the ASF lists, and a lot of checking-the-rules in day to day project management. A lot of ASF infrastructure is pretty much vanilla. Also most spec bodies have relatively little custom infrastructure beyond some mailing list robots.

An off-the-shelf "Robert's Rules"-like manual for governing community spec projects would be far more useful. I'd buy a printed copy of that for my desk.

-- Legal work

The big one I'm looking forward to here is the model CLA; this is the most immediately useful. And I assume can be adapted fairly easily from the Apache CCLA and ICLA.

it was a shame the model license got stuck, but its worth pursuing. An OWF License should be like an Apache License or a CC License - simple, clear, easy to use for your own projects even if they have nothing to do with the OWF itself. I'm sure its doable - maybe a pause is a good thing here, so we can approach it with fresh eyes and get it done.

-- Resources

Are have failed to accomplish much as a purely volunteer organization. After a year we have very little to show for. I am also going to make a frustrating (but self-serving) observation that in most cases, unless I personally take care of something, it just doesn’t happen. I have posted a list of tasks which received very little interest, and even that has yet to materialize into any visible outcome.

I think we need to consider raising funds and set to accomplish most of the goals above with paid professionals. We should stay focused on specific deliverables and keep the foundation itself as lean as possible, but we are simply not getting anything done. And no, having a wiki will not magically get work done. If people wanted to put in time, the lack of a wiki would not have stopped them.

Well, here is my list of stuff-to-deliver:

- OWF Rules for Open Specification Communities (book)

- OWF License

- OWF Model CLA

I don't think it would require much resource, but I agree that a wiki isn't a magic bullet - a small number of very committed individuals is needed to make things happen. 

-- Roles

---

This is the general outline. There is a lot in here to think about but I hope this will help get the conversation going. I will give the board a few days to think about this before I post each item on the public list for a wide discussion.

D'oh I should have read this bit first. Well, I'll republish my comments on the public list later on! But yes, this is definitely the right set of questions to ask.

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

On 9/1/09 1:57 PM, "Scott Wilson" <scott.brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

a small number of very committed individuals is needed to make things happen

My point is that this has proven to be impractical. I can’t put more time into the OWF and I have been unable to get others to put any significant time (other than David Rudin). We need real resources that can be counted on to get work done or we will be having these same discussions for a few more years. I think a year is long enough to give the current system a try.

EHL

[Lawrence Rosen]

Eran  Hammer-Lahav wrote:

My point is that this has proven to be impractical. I can’t put more time into the OWF and I have been unable to get others to put any significant time (other than David Rudin). We need real resources that can be counted on to get work done or we will be having these same discussions for a few more years. I think a year is long enough to give the current system a try.

Eran, I'm sorry that you're already feeling frustrated with us. I agree that David Rudin has worked hard, and so have you, and you deserve credit for that. But others of us are just now joining the board and we're here to help guide this organization forward. You needn't (and shouldn't) try to do it all yourself.

 

Tantek and I just today learned how to connect to open-web-board@. Others of us are just back from vacation. Give us a chance to get focused.

 

One thing I personally would appreciate is a report at the board meeting from the Infrastructure Committee. I'm sure they haven't had a lot of time to get started but they must have some ideas of what to do first. How about a short proposal?

 

I personally don't need a report from the Legal Committee, although others on the board may want one. That's  most of what we've been talking about for the last year. But what we do need is an infrastructure so we can post our draft Specification License and receive specific comments from the public. Does anyone know how best to do that? Meanwhile, I'd like to hear nominations for a chair of the Legal Committee. (NOT ME!) Someone needs to lead our CLA-drafting effort.

 

Best regards, everyone, and let's get going!

 

/Larry

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

I am not frustrated with anyone in particular. I am only frustrated with the lack of progress the organization is making. Even with your help on the board this is not going to change (it will however help us make better decisions). There is a huge pile of work to be done and at the participation level people are able to contribute (note this is not passing judgment, just recognition that the more talented people are, the less free time they have for this) we will never accomplish what we set to do.

The legal committee has been working for almost a year and yet, take a look at the actual effort put in by its members on average. Not very promising. We have one document, incomplete, and we can’t find enough people to fully execute the feedback plan for over a month now.

In addition, since I have little interest in continuing to run elections manually and spend hours on administrative tasks that should be automated with a tool, we need to find a more permanent solution. That will take some engineering to build it and maintain it. I would be surprised if we were able to get this done on a purely volunteer basis.

This is not all bad news. It is nothing more than the recognition that what we are trying to create is going to cost some money beyond the free good will our members are willing to put in.

EHL

[Lawrence Rosen]

Dear Board,

 

It is not productive to plead lack of volunteer energy or resources to do OWF's task. When I was a manager I was taught to bring solutions to the table, not problems.

 

Many companies have already recognized the value of OWF's mission and have dedicated their senior staff to work with us. If it will take more than this existing semi-volunteer effort, then it is up to this Board to find those additional resources, not to cry exhaustion already.

 

The most important task of any non-profit board of directors is fundraising. If we need additional time from additional skilled people, let's raise the funds to make our commitment possible.

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

Did you read my entire post? You make it sound like I am just sitting here complaining when that was just a tiny fraction of my original post. And still, we are saying the same thing, that we need to find resources, namely money, to get work done faster.

 

EHL

[Tantek Celik]

Eran,

The "Did you read my entire post?" problem is jusrt yet another problem with using email as a medium for publishing/sharing content/ideas/discussions, it's not Larry's fault.

Frankly, the poor s/n ration on the open-web-* lists, and the general overhead of email have made it too costly (time/attn-wise) to meaningfully participate unless OWF is all (or maybe half of what) one spends time on.

When the wiki is setup, we'll get a lot more done, more quickly, and hopefully without having to repeat ourselves as often. Until then I'm fine with waiting.

Tantek

---

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:51:15 -0700
To: open-we...@googlegroups.com<open-we...@googlegroups.com>

[Scott Wilson]

For getting public feedback on proposals, a very nice tool is DigressIt (http://digress.it/). This is a WordPress theme that supports paragraph-level commenting. 

Examples here:

http://writetoreply.org/kindlelicense/

http://writetoreply.org/jiscstrategyreview/  << we're using this to solicit comments on our strategy

There is also free hosting at digress.it

S

[David]

I think Eran has raised a lot of good and valid points, and I’ll share
some of my own observations about how things have been running and
where we’ve fallen short.

The Board itself has been largely inactive, which in many ways was by
design since the Board was originally envisioned to provide a high
level check on the organization’s activities. Without the Board’s
active involvement in providing guidance, deadlines, deliverables, and
input to the various activity streams, however, the Legal Committee
and other activities were left largely on their own. I think getting
the Board meeting on a regular schedule would be extremely helpful.

The Legal Committee itself suffered from lack of deadlines and,
perhaps, operating without any real sense of urgency. At the risk of
being self serving, I don’t believe getting the drafting done was ever
an issue. I think the larger issue was getting involvement from many
members of the committee and moving the agreement forward through the
committee. While a neutral chair in the W3C tradition may have
helped in some cases (especially around setting goals and deliverable
dates), I think it’s fair to say that every single comment received
was given fair consideration.

At the Legal Committee level, what I think we needed and need going
forward is having a regular meeting schedule. I simply don’t believe
that an email list is an effective platform for developing these kinds
of agreements. There is really no replacement for talking through
these issues.

I would also say that the Legal Committee membership and voting
process needs to be revised. I think it’s important to have a
relatively open process, but it is simply unacceptable for a “member”
of the committee who has not provided any contribution to the work to
vote no at the end of the process. There must be some involvement
criteria before someone is given a formal vote on the outcome of the
work.

But perhaps one of the biggest shortcomings, in my opinion, was
waiting. We waited for feedback from members of the Legal Committee.
We waited for feedback from the larger OWF membership and community.
We waited for feedback from other standards organizations. We waited
for a new board to be put in place. We need to set deadlines and
stick to them. We have been as open as possible in our process and
nothing has stopped anyone or any organization from contributing to
the work. As long as we’re open in our development process, I don’t
think we need to keep building in additional comment and review
periods. To date, they have resulting in only limited feedback but
have delayed us by months.

I think our ultimate feedback will come from whether or not our target
projects adopt our legal agreements. If Activity Streams, Portable
Contacts, Web Finger, etc., and even proprietary projects like Google
Wave, adopt our agreements, we’re on the right track. If they don’t,
then we’ve missed the mark and need to try again.

I don’t believe we need to bring in paid resources to manage/chair the
Legal Committee. Even most well funded standards organizations rely
heavily on volunteers to get the heavy legal lifting done. That said,
I would like to see the Board itself take a more active role in
keeping the Legal Committee on track.

As to Eran’s suggestions, I think we need to consider them carefully.
Raising funds, developing tools, and hosting projects are drastic
changes from our current approach and brings us closer to being a
traditional standards organization rather than an organization that
provides legal frameworks and development best practices for others to
use for their own projects.

At the heart of the matter is what type of organization we want to
be. While we’ve drawn inspiration from Apache, I’ve always thought of
OWF as more akin to the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons
doesn’t host writing projects, but its agreements are widely used and
respected. By creating tools and hosting projects, are we going be
become the SourceForge of specification development?

As far as tools, I would support the creation or purchase of tools to
help our internal processes. To that end, it might make sense to look
at tools other organizations are using and even commercial offerings
such as Kavi.

I’m far more leery about developing specification development tools.
These are difficult, time consuming, and potentially expensive tools
to build. Even if we build them, there is no guarantee that they’ll
actually get used or even compare well with the existing tools that
projects are currently using. I think our efforts would be better
spent developing frameworks around existing tools and even working
with existing tool providers to tweak their offerings to meet spec
development needs. We could also work with fee based providers to
provide free or discounted services for specification development
efforts using the OWF frameworks. Developing our own tools should
really be a last resort based on well specified needs.

Overall, I agree that we need to make changes if OWF is to be
successful. My preference, however, would be to largely stay on our
current course, but tweak our processes and work on internal tools to
address the shortcomings. If after giving these smaller steps a try
we find that we’re still not making progress, we can try something
more drastic.

[Lawrence Rosen]

David wrote:
> While we’ve drawn inspiration from Apache, I’ve always thought of OWF as
> more akin to the Creative Commons. The Creative Commons doesn’t host
> writing projects, but its agreements are widely used and respected.

David, I'll respond to the rest of your thoughtful email after I've read it
more carefully and heard others' responses. But with regard to your
comparison to Creative Commons, that organization has a paid staff,
including a general counsel, and pays people to do work that furthers its
organizational goals. It relies on volunteers, of course, and has many. But
CC is not the best example for your point.

Apache, on the other hand, is being dragged kicking and screaming into the
"paid staff" and "fundraising" mindset. If you think we'll get lots of
dedicated volunteers to do OWF tools and infrastructure, then maybe you
ought to draw more inspiration from Apache--at least until Apache changes to
suit current needs.

/Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: open-we...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:open-we...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:38 PM
To: open-web-board
Subject: [Open Web Board] Re: Setting Course

[Scott Wilson]

I think the point David was making was that OWF doesn't need to build
tools and infrastructure, but focus on providing the instruments that
can be used by communities creating specifications such as license,
CLA, governance model. I made the same point myself in my response to
EHL on this list.

Thats still a lot of work, but its a lot less work than becoming the
"Sourceforge of spec development".

I would agree however that if model legal documents are core OWF
outputs, that it probably needs to get funding for some professional
legal services.

(Note however that quite a lot of CC legal legwork was contributed
voluntarily by law schools, such as license-porting - e.g. the UK CC
license porting was done by the London School of Economics and Oxford
University.)

S

> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "open-web-board" group.
> To post to this group, send email to open-we...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> open-web-boar...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-board?hl=en
> For more information: http://openwebfoundation.org/
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>

[Lawrence Rosen]

Scott Wilson wrote:
> I think the point David was making was that OWF doesn't need to build
> tools and infrastructure, but focus on providing the instruments that
> can be used by communities creating specifications such as license,
> CLA, governance model. I made the same point myself in my response to
> EHL on this list.

Do we have any role to play in providing 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) legal
infrastructure? Tax return preparation? Implementation of servers and wikis
and email lists and specification version control? Providing a legal
structure with standing to enforce CLAs and other agreements? Developing
best practice guidelines? Doing public relations?

I'm not trying to add to our charter unnecessarily, but I hear that some
open source projects want a low-overhead, non-corporate, place to design and
promote open web standards. I don't want us to offer that if we can't raise
enough funds to deliver an effective set of tools.

By the way, I think that obtaining funding for legal review of our documents
is the last thing we need. There are some very talented attorneys whose
salaries are paid by some important companies here at OWF and on the board,
and we're getting that "volunteer" help already! It is the rest of the
infrastructure we lack.

[David]

My references to Creative Commons and Apache wasn't intended to be an
example for how to staff and fund an organization. Rather, it was
intended to help frame what we think the scope and mission of OWF
should be. The Creative Commons is not a place for people to write.
It's a place that creates agreements that people and organizations can
apply to their own work, and that's been the model OWF has been
following so far. OWF and Apache may share very similar Bylaws, but
they have, at least to date, very different missions. So while OWF
may look a lot like Apache in structure (by design), I think our scope
is more similar to the Creative Commons since we've been focusing on
helping others do work on their own.

Being an umbrella organization for projects and raising funds
increases the complexity. If we take funds, we will need bookkeeping,
accounting, and tax filings. If we run servers, we'll need to
maintain them. I'm not saying this isn't a road we should ultimately
take, but it is a road makes us start looking like a formal standards
organization.

David

> ...
>
> read more »

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

Keep in mind that there is a wide range of tools we can offer. The reason I don't think offering legal documents alone is enough is because it will often put too much burden on communities to administer their work. For example, it would be helpful to have a mailing list system (or wiki) where contribution is tagged with the IP agreement status of the participant. So a spec editor can tell if a contribution is covered by a CLA or not. Also, it would be great to have a way for employers to manage their employees' participation and set company-wide policies instead of having to sign a paper for each individual.

Speaking from actual experience, the headache of collecting the 10 or so agreements for OAuth was still problematic for our community, even after we finished and agreed on the legal terms of the license. Creative Commons is solving a much simpler problem (logistically) but even they offer a wizard that creates the custom HTML code for people to paste into their sites.

It would be a shame if at the end of all this work, communities will rather go to a standards body for the sole reason that it provides an administrator to deal with all this legal booking. My suggestion is that we figure out the right set of tools that will assist in the correct implementation of our legal framework.

And BTW, even writing documents costs money. It doesn't have to be code. And speaking of money, it doesn't have to be enormous amounts, and it can also come from collaborating with other foundations (such as OpenID, OpenSocial, InfoCards, etc.).

I am happy to try harder to get people to volunteer, but there is nothing *I* can do (more) to make it happen. The point of my post was to set a general course, which will have to be broken down into smaller deliverable and adjusted to reality.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-we...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> bo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 1:27 PM
> To: open-we...@googlegroups.com

[Tantek Celik]

Eran wrote:

> For example, it would be helpful to have a mailing list system (or wiki) where contribution is tagged with the IP agreement status of the participant. So a spec editor can tell if a contribution is covered by a CLA or not

Agreed. In fact one of the reasons the microformats community switched from informally to formally using the wiki as our source of "truth" rather than email was that we were able to fairly easily setup mediawiki (an oss tool) to place requirements on all contributions (a reminder with each edit), while no such equivalent exists for the oss list sw we are using (mailman).

Also the broad familiarity with wikipedia's contributions requirement (most open standards ppl have edited wikipedia) UI helped from a UX perspective.

This and other reasons listed here: http://tr.im/wikibetter

And why I advise *against* using email lists to start/do any kind of "open" standards discussions.

As Eran said, collecting IP agreements after the fact is a huge pain.

Until someone builds/writes email list oss that explictly place requirements on all contributions, start with a Mediawiki with explicit contribution requirements right there up front.

It's what works today without any additional coding / building of tools.

Tantek


-----Original Message-----
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <er...@hueniverse.com>

Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:03:39
To: open-we...@googlegroups.com<open-we...@googlegroups.com>

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

While this might work for some specs and some communities, the idea of changing the process for the tool is backwards. We should use the right tools and if we can't find any, look into building some. I think incorporating a wiki into the standard stack of spec work is great and something we can certainly do more and better. I think the Microformats experience is extremely valuable.

[Scott Wilson]

I'm currently working with two small spec development communities
(XCRI and PIOP). They both have SVN, Wiki, Forums, mailing lists, etc
- on their own domains.

What they are struggling with is licensing and governance.

Installing a wiki is easy. Effective and transparent governance is hard.

These communities are full of techies, after all - people who are
perfectly at home installing MediaWiki, but get a bit lost when it
comes to licensing choices, or creating management structures.

Not to say OWF shouldn't offer a wiki or whatever if someone wants to
look after it, just that its not a big deal, and some spec communities
simply have no need for another one.

For example, those two spec communities I mention wouldn't port all
their content over to an OWF system (why bother?)

But they would love to take advantage of license, CLA, and best
practices for governance.

S

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

You are missing my point. In order for them to use these legal documents correctly, they need tools that support it and enable them. It's like me telling you that you should make decision using some complex algorithm but not giving you any tools to actually make the calculation. I am not suggesting we invest time and money in building a wiki or mailing list. I am suggesting we make sure we provide tools that incorporate our principals and process in a way that enables communities to use it.

[Brady Brim-DeForest]

Not to distract from the conversation at hand, but having been through
the process of building community driven organizations a number of
times, there is inevitably that point at which the excitement has
boiled off from the initial efforts of forming the organization. At
this point the future of the organization largely depends on the
ability of the organization's leaders to engineer a culture centered
around accountability.

We are now at a point where we have the opportunity and the mandate to
focus on clearly defined goals and deliverables. Often assigning
responsibility for those deliverables to small groups of individuals
(no more than five people) can help to create a certain cohesiveness
of mission and obtain that desired level of accountability.

Yes, a year feels like a long time, and yes, we haven't been as
productive as we could have been, but that problem can be easily
remedied by creating some basic structure to our workflow:

1. Weekly or bi-weekly calls: While this may sound daunting,
committing one hour once a week or every other week should be a basic
requirement for board membership. Employing the Socratic Method on
calls can help us to reduce decision making friction. Regular calls
can also have the effect of creating visible deadlines.

2. Wiki: We need a place to document and collaborate. Email will only
get us so far.

A little bit of structure will go a long way.

- Brady


--
Brady Brim-DeForest
www.brimdeforest.com (the blog)
www.tubefilter.tv (the company)

Follow me: twitter.com/bradybd

This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private

[DeWitt Clinton]

I'd be in favor of regular calls or IRC meetings.  If possible, I'd also like for these meetings to be generally open for the public to attend and have the floor as needed.

-DeWitt

[Brady Brim-DeForest]

+1

Sent from my iPhone

[Lawrence Rosen]

DeWitt Clinton wrote:

I'd be in favor of regular calls or IRC meetings.  If possible, I'd also like for these meetings to be generally open for the public to attend and have the floor as needed.

 

I agree, as long as we publish an agenda and follow it. The agenda can include time for the public to comment on items of interest to them, and again at the end of the meeting to bring up new issues.

 

If the previous IRC meeting is an example, what took place in the official board meeting was well-coordinated (thanks, Eran!), but the conversations that took place in the back channel were impossible to follow or control. Let's please not emulate that latter scene at our official board meetings.

 

Repeating a question I asked before: Will there be formal reports from the Infrastructure and Legal committees? (Perhaps David will do the first report for the Legal committee, since he's already done most of the heavy lifting and is a good writer?)

 

/Larry

[David Recordon]

I think Eran is making a very good point here. While the license
(once it is final) and the CLA are both very useful tools, the current
infrastructure – person and company management, mailing lists, and
wikis – still require manual process overhead. Apache manually
receives CLAs via fax and a person lists them on a web page. The
OpenID Foundation paid to develop a membership management and voting
tool. And standards bodies like OASIS have home grown integration
between membership management and mailing lists.

I am supportive of the Foundation creating pieces of software
infrastructure which make communities successful in developing
specifications for the open web. We shouldn't kid ourselves that our
goals can be accomplished solely by volunteers, but also shouldn't
acquire more monetary resources than are necessary.

I would like to see the Board agree on deliverables for this year and
next and from there make a decision about how the organization is
resourced. It is however critical to our future success that the
license is finalized and a solid draft of the CLA written this year.

--David

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav<er...@hueniverse.com> wrote:
>

[David Recordon]

Yes! Imagine if when you viewed a change in MediaWiki it also showed
the CLA and non-assert status next to the person who made the change.
Or when I send an email to a spec list a footer is automatically added
listing my employer and our CLA status.

Those would be incredibly useful tools to bring additional
transparency to the specification development process and make it
easier to learn about potential IP issues sooner.

--David

[David Recordon]

Nate and I can provide a formal report from the Infrastructure
committee before the 8/14 board meeting.

--David