The OWF board will meet 1/29 to discuss our goals, moving forward, and how to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the board? What topics do you want discussed?
- Plan for progress on the CLA - Discussion of tools needed for specification development and current gaps - How do we get to the point where the OpenID and OpenSocial Foundations can move to using the OWF agreement
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: > The OWF board will meet 1/29 to discuss our goals, moving forward, and how > to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the > board? What topics do you want discussed?
> EHL
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:45 PM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com> wrote: > - Plan for progress on the CLA > - Discussion of tools needed for specification development and current > gaps
Perhaps this is implied, but I think this goes hand in hand with a discussion of the OWF's scope. Templates? Tools? Registries? Holder of IP?
> - How do we get to the point where the OpenID and OpenSocial > Foundations can move to using the OWF agreement
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> > wrote: > > The OWF board will meet 1/29 to discuss our goals, moving forward, and > how > > to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the > > board? What topics do you want discussed?
> > EHL
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
It would be great if we can provide clarity in our objectives as it relates to the overall "OPEN WEB" -- specific objectives quantifiable over the next 12 months.
Also, what it does mean to be a member of the OpenWeb (and what is reasonably expected)... what does it mean to be a OWF supporter?
I believe that more than a few members felt that these issues were clear, but it is clear to me that more than a few folks are not really sure. Clarity and communications are a good thing.
BTW, and separately, kudos to all those that contributed leading up to 2010. Contentious at times, always engaging, yet still moving in the right direction. More please.
[mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:42 AM To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject: What do you want from the OWF board?
The OWF board will meet 1/29 to discuss our goals, moving forward, and how to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the board? What topics do you want discussed?
1) Governance revisited I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. I want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the major standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this reason, is the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I appreciate it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is not going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the 'peer' approval model has more cost than benefit.
2) Identity clarification Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? Is it a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly heading towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it answer the third one and what that means.
3) Metrics for success Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF work, and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on this upfront will create focus and clarity.
> The OWF board will meet 1/29 to discuss our goals, moving forward, and how > to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the > board? What topics do you want discussed?
> EHL
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
Great questions, Elias. And thank you for starting this thread, Eran.
I'm particularly keen on us documenting measurable success criteria for all of our objectives in advance. We don't have to necessarily meet all of our goals -- in fact, if we set the goals high enough, we won't -- but writing them down up-front will do wonders for aligning people around a common purpose, and give us something concrete against which to evaluate our progress.
We should probably do this both at the committee level and at the board level. The meeting is a good time to start with the latter.
-DeWitt
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 1) Governance revisited > I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. I > want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current > governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. > The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the major > standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this reason, is > the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I appreciate > it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is not > going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the 'peer' > approval model has more cost than benefit.
> 2) Identity clarification > Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? Is it > a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of > technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly heading > towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it answer > the third one and what that means.
> 3) Metrics for success > Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF work, > and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on this > upfront will create focus and clarity.
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:
>> The OWF board will meet 1/29 to discuss our goals, moving forward, and how >> to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the >> board? What topics do you want discussed?
>> EHL
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. >> To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
Governance is high on my list; Elias' anecdote striking.
Would love to see formation of the advocacy and incubator committees Dewitt proposed. Possibly another (Advocacy Roadshow Subcommittee?) formed to explore Mark's roadshow ideas.
I'm also curious if there is interest in scheduling OWF meetings & get-together's around OSCon and/or OS Bridge?
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:35 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote: > Great questions, Elias. And thank you for starting this thread, Eran.
> I'm particularly keen on us documenting measurable success criteria for all > of our obj ectives in advance. We don't have to necessarily meet all of > our goals -- in fact, if we set the goals high enough, we won't -- but > writing them down up-front will do wonders for aligning people around a > common purpose, and give us something concrete against which to evaluate our > progress.
> We should probably do this both at the committee level and at the board > level. The meeting is a good time to start with the latter.
> -DeWitt
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com > > wrote:
>> 1) Governance revisited >> I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. I >> want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current >> governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. >> The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the >> major standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this >> reason, is the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I >> appreciate it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up >> is not going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the >> 'peer' approval model has more cost than benefit.
>> 2) Identity clarification >> Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? Is >> it a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of >> technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly heading >> towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it answer >> the third one and what that means.
>> 3) Metrics for success >> Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF work, >> and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on this >> upfront will create focus and clarity.
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:
>>> The OWF board will meet 1/29 to discuss our goals, moving forward, and >>> how >>> to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the >>> board? What topics do you want discussed?
>>> EHL
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. >> To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
As the effective co-ordinator of a community-based specification, LEAP2A (you can google for more info), I very much welcome what OWF has done already, and look forward eagerly to whatever CLA that OWF may come up with.
One other thing that is a real challenge, and I wonder whether OWF may at some point help with, is the question of how to constitute a body comprising a group of vendors, developers, and other parties interested in using the spec, in a way that they are able to safeguard the openness and integrity of the spec, as well as their own interests, through the current OWF Agreement, and other applicable instruments as they become available.
Perhaps this is not a million miles away from the question of the constitution of the OWF itself.
In the long term, it would be extremely helpful to have a small set of model constitutions, articles of association, etc. for the different plausible kinds of governance structure (which might need to grow to cover different jurisdictions); however in the short term a good page of information and links would be a great help.
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:45 PM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com> wrote: > > - Plan for progress on the CLA > > - Discussion of tools needed for specification development and current > > gaps
> Perhaps this is implied, but I think this goes hand in hand with a > discussion of the OWF's scope. Templates? Tools? Registries? Holder of > IP?
> > - How do we get to the point where the OpenID and OpenSocial > > Foundations can move to using the OWF agreement
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> > > wrote: > > > The OWF board will meet 1/29 to discuss our goals, moving forward, and > > how > > > to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the > > > board? What topics do you want discussed?
> > > EHL
> > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
On Jan 19, 10:03 pm, "Steve Repetti" <st...@steverepetti.com> wrote:
> It would be great if we can provide clarity in our objectives as it relates > to the overall "OPEN WEB" -- specific objectives quantifiable over the next > 12 months.
Can you suggest some?
> Also, what it does mean to be a member of the OpenWeb (and what is > reasonably expected)... what does it mean to be a OWF supporter?
> I believe that more than a few members felt that these issues were clear, > but it is clear to me that more than a few folks are not really sure. > Clarity and communications are a good thing.
> BTW, and separately, kudos to all those that contributed leading up to 2010. > Contentious at times, always engaging, yet still moving in the right > direction. More please.
> [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:42 AM > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com > Subject: What do you want from the OWF board?
> The OWF board will meet 1/29 to discuss our goals, moving forward, and how > to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the > board? What topics do you want discussed?
On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Governance revisited > I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. I > want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current > governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. > The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the major > standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this reason, is > the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I appreciate > it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is not > going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the 'peer' > approval model has more cost than benefit.
Care you put an alternative proposal on the table? Is this simply a matter of appearances? So far there are only 2 people I know who asked to be members and didn't get a vote yet (because of lack of resources/ interest running one). If we fixed this and held a vote within a month of every nomination, would that solve your issue? So far, I think only 2 people asked to be members and got declined (neither one bothered to fill in the application).
I don't have a strong objection to changing the model, especially in the context of reconsidering what the purpose of this organization is. But I am not a fan of change for the sake of appearances. The model was selected based on Apache because at the time, we were going to build an "Apache for specifications". That meant strong reliance on meritocracy. At this point after two years, it is not clear if this is still the right or practical purpose of this organization.
> 2) Identity clarification > Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? Is it > a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of > technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly heading > towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it answer > the third one and what that means.
What do *you* think it should be? What do *you* need?
> 3) Metrics for success > Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF work, > and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on this > upfront will create focus and clarity.
Agreed. Deadline for the CLA is easy, as long as we maintain the same level of commitment from those driving this effort (which I think we will). Setting targets for existing specs is much trickier given the number of corporations involved, but more importantly, the fact that since OAuth 1.0 and OpenID 2.0 were finalized, no other community spec was declared final (for whatever reason).
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:
> > The OWF board will meet 1/29 to discuss our goals, moving forward, and how > > to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the > > board? What topics do you want discussed?
> > EHL
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
On Jan 21, 10:18 pm, Nathan DiNiro <unclen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Governance is high on my list; Elias' anecdote striking.
> Would love to see formation of the advocacy and incubator committees Dewitt > proposed. Possibly another (Advocacy Roadshow Subcommittee?) formed to > explore Mark's roadshow ideas.
We don't need a committee to explore ideas. This list is a perfect place for that.
So far I have seen very little actual interest in the two committees DeWitt kindly introduced. Given that we have been discussing these two initiatives for over 2 years now, I wasn't expecting a sudden flow of interest, but I was surprise at how little discussion it inspired, or that virtually no one stepped forward to offer actual resources.
If this is a matter of defining better what we want to do, let's discuss that (hoping people will express actual views, not just raise questions). If you already know you want to participate, don't take it for granted that these committees will be created in anticipation of some future participation. We need people to raise their hands now, if we are going to charter new committees.
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:35 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote: > > Great questions, Elias. And thank you for starting this thread, Eran.
> > I'm particularly keen on us documenting measurable success criteria for all > > of our obj ectives in advance. We don't have to necessarily meet all of > > our goals -- in fact, if we set the goals high enough, we won't -- but > > writing them down up-front will do wonders for aligning people around a > > common purpose, and give us something concrete against which to evaluate our > > progress.
> > We should probably do this both at the committee level and at the board > > level. The meeting is a good time to start with the latter.
> > -DeWitt
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com > > > wrote:
> >> 1) Governance revisited > >> I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. I > >> want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current > >> governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. > >> The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the > >> major standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this > >> reason, is the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I > >> appreciate it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up > >> is not going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the > >> 'peer' approval model has more cost than benefit.
> >> 2) Identity clarification > >> Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? Is > >> it a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of > >> technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly heading > >> towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it answer > >> the third one and what that means.
> >> 3) Metrics for success > >> Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF work, > >> and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on this > >> upfront will create focus and clarity.
> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:
> >>> The OWF board will meet 1/29 to discuss our goals, moving forward, and > >>> how > >>> to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the > >>> board? What topics do you want discussed?
> >>> EHL
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >>> "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > >>> To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > >>> . > >>> For more options, visit this group at > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >> "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > >> . > >> For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1) Governance revisited > > I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. I > > want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current > > governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. > > The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the > major > > standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this reason, > is > > the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I appreciate > > it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is not > > going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the > 'peer' > > approval model has more cost than benefit.
> Care you put an alternative proposal on the table? Is this simply a > matter of appearances? So far there are only 2 people I know who asked > to be members and didn't get a vote yet (because of lack of resources/ > interest running one). If we fixed this and held a vote within a month > of every nomination, would that solve your issue? So far, I think only > 2 people asked to be members and got declined (neither one bothered to > fill in the application).
> I don't have a strong objection to changing the model, especially in > the context of reconsidering what the purpose of this organization is. > But I am not a fan of change for the sake of appearances. The model > was selected based on Apache because at the time, we were going to > build an "Apache for specifications". That meant strong reliance on > meritocracy. At this point after two years, it is not clear if this is > still the right or practical purpose of this organization.
So the options are: - anyone that wants to, become a member - anyone that completes X hurdle, becomes a member (such as, x contribution to committees).
As opposed to: - you only become a member if other member's accept you.
At the DataPortability Project, we use the first option and it's never been a problem. It's hard to find volunteers, let alone people that actually bother to contribute. I can sympathise with the second option, and given the context, would recommend that as the way forward (I think each group has it's own culture and you can't copy and paste others). So people need to demonstrate that they've made an objective and demonstrative contribution to the OWF and the community (how we quantify that is hard). If they pass X hurdle, then they may apply to the secretary of the board for membership
So yes, it does do more for appearances than anything else. But appearances shape perception - and the perception right now is that the OWF is not open. It's my personal gripe with the OWF, but it also is the specific reason why this important stakeholder institution will not support the OWF.
> > 2) Identity clarification > > Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? Is > it > > a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of > > technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly > heading > > towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it > answer > > the third one and what that means.
> What do *you* think it should be? What do *you* need?
I want open standards, but not all (defacto) standards are open yet - the OWF provides the mechanism to help them achieve that status. If the OWF can be the copyright holder for community-driven specifications, than that to me is brilliant.
We don't need another standard's body. And I've already voiced my opinion about the "open web" brand, but I'm not going to fight it, as it's a Google powered brand now and if it sticks then so be it.
> > 3) Metrics for success > > Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF work, > > and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on this > > upfront will create focus and clarity.
> Agreed. Deadline for the CLA is easy, as long as we maintain the same > level of commitment from those driving this effort (which I think we > will). Setting targets for existing specs is much trickier given the > number of corporations involved, but more importantly, the fact that > since OAuth 1.0 and OpenID 2.0 were finalized, no other community spec > was declared final (for whatever reason).
Cool. Well maybe the OWF can use its influence to speed up the process of these specs. It sets a deadline saying "we want x to be achieved by then" - and if it can't, the OWF throws its resources at the community to try to speed up the process. That's where I see the value of the OWF as an incubator of emerging specifications.
As far as membership concerns go, I would not personally be opposed to the OpenID Foundation model — requiring a nominal membership fee from members.
A membership fee creates a different type of engagement in many cases ("I'm going to get my money's worth!") as well as providing some ongoing operating capital.
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:
>> Thanks Elias.
>> On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 1) Governance revisited >> > I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. I >> > want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current >> > governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. >> > The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the >> major >> > standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this reason, >> is >> > the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I >> appreciate >> > it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is not >> > going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the >> 'peer' >> > approval model has more cost than benefit.
>> Care you put an alternative proposal on the table? Is this simply a >> matter of appearances? So far there are only 2 people I know who asked >> to be members and didn't get a vote yet (because of lack of resources/ >> interest running one). If we fixed this and held a vote within a month >> of every nomination, would that solve your issue? So far, I think only >> 2 people asked to be members and got declined (neither one bothered to >> fill in the application).
>> I don't have a strong objection to changing the model, especially in >> the context of reconsidering what the purpose of this organization is. >> But I am not a fan of change for the sake of appearances. The model >> was selected based on Apache because at the time, we were going to >> build an "Apache for specifications". That meant strong reliance on >> meritocracy. At this point after two years, it is not clear if this is >> still the right or practical purpose of this organization.
> So the options are: > - anyone that wants to, become a member > - anyone that completes X hurdle, becomes a member (such as, x contribution > to committees).
> As opposed to: > - you only become a member if other member's accept you.
> At the DataPortability Project, we use the first option and it's never been > a problem. It's hard to find volunteers, let alone people that actually > bother to contribute. > I can sympathise with the second option, and given the context, would > recommend that as the way forward (I think each group has it's own culture > and you can't copy and paste others). So people need to demonstrate that > they've made an objective and demonstrative contribution to the OWF and the > community (how we quantify that is hard). If they pass X hurdle, then they > may apply to the secretary of the board for membership
> So yes, it does do more for appearances than anything else. But appearances > shape perception - and the perception right now is that the OWF is not open. > It's my personal gripe with the OWF, but it also is the specific reason why > this important stakeholder institution will not support the OWF.
>> > 2) Identity clarification >> > Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? Is >> it >> > a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of >> > technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly >> heading >> > towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it >> answer >> > the third one and what that means.
>> What do *you* think it should be? What do *you* need?
> I want open standards, but not all (defacto) standards are open yet - the > OWF provides the mechanism to help them achieve that status. If the OWF can > be the copyright holder for community-driven specifications, than that to me > is brilliant.
> We don't need another standard's body. And I've already voiced my opinion > about the "open web" brand, but I'm not going to fight it, as it's a Google > powered brand now and if it sticks then so be it.
>> > 3) Metrics for success >> > Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF >> work, >> > and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on >> this >> > upfront will create focus and clarity.
>> Agreed. Deadline for the CLA is easy, as long as we maintain the same >> level of commitment from those driving this effort (which I think we >> will). Setting targets for existing specs is much trickier given the >> number of corporations involved, but more importantly, the fact that >> since OAuth 1.0 and OpenID 2.0 were finalized, no other community spec >> was declared final (for whatever reason).
> Cool. Well maybe the OWF can use its influence to speed up the process of > these specs. It sets a deadline saying "we want x to be achieved by then" - > and if it can't, the OWF throws its resources at the community to try to > speed up the process. That's where I see the value of the OWF as an > incubator of emerging specifications.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
I don't think that the OpenID Foundation has been very successful with its membership model. I personally think that we can fund organizations like this one via sponsorship versus needing to sell memberships.
--David
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Brady Brim-DeForest <brad...@gmail.com>wrote:
> As far as membership concerns go, I would not personally be opposed to the > OpenID Foundation model — requiring a nominal membership fee from members.
> A membership fee creates a different type of engagement in many cases ("I'm > going to get my money's worth!") as well as providing some ongoing operating > capital.
> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com > > wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:
>>> Thanks Elias.
>>> On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > 1) Governance revisited >>> > I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. >>> I >>> > want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current >>> > governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. >>> > The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the >>> major >>> > standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this >>> reason, is >>> > the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I >>> appreciate >>> > it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is not >>> > going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the >>> 'peer' >>> > approval model has more cost than benefit.
>>> Care you put an alternative proposal on the table? Is this simply a >>> matter of appearances? So far there are only 2 people I know who asked >>> to be members and didn't get a vote yet (because of lack of resources/ >>> interest running one). If we fixed this and held a vote within a month >>> of every nomination, would that solve your issue? So far, I think only >>> 2 people asked to be members and got declined (neither one bothered to >>> fill in the application).
>>> I don't have a strong objection to changing the model, especially in >>> the context of reconsidering what the purpose of this organization is. >>> But I am not a fan of change for the sake of appearances. The model >>> was selected based on Apache because at the time, we were going to >>> build an "Apache for specifications". That meant strong reliance on >>> meritocracy. At this point after two years, it is not clear if this is >>> still the right or practical purpose of this organization.
>> So the options are: >> - anyone that wants to, become a member >> - anyone that completes X hurdle, becomes a member (such as, x >> contribution to committees).
>> As opposed to: >> - you only become a member if other member's accept you.
>> At the DataPortability Project, we use the first option and it's never >> been a problem. It's hard to find volunteers, let alone people that actually >> bother to contribute. >> I can sympathise with the second option, and given the context, would >> recommend that as the way forward (I think each group has it's own culture >> and you can't copy and paste others). So people need to demonstrate that >> they've made an objective and demonstrative contribution to the OWF and the >> community (how we quantify that is hard). If they pass X hurdle, then they >> may apply to the secretary of the board for membership
>> So yes, it does do more for appearances than anything else. But >> appearances shape perception - and the perception right now is that the OWF >> is not open. It's my personal gripe with the OWF, but it also is the >> specific reason why this important stakeholder institution will not support >> the OWF.
>>> > 2) Identity clarification >>> > Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? >>> Is it >>> > a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of >>> > technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly >>> heading >>> > towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it >>> answer >>> > the third one and what that means.
>>> What do *you* think it should be? What do *you* need?
>> I want open standards, but not all (defacto) standards are open yet - the >> OWF provides the mechanism to help them achieve that status. If the OWF can >> be the copyright holder for community-driven specifications, than that to me >> is brilliant.
>> We don't need another standard's body. And I've already voiced my opinion >> about the "open web" brand, but I'm not going to fight it, as it's a Google >> powered brand now and if it sticks then so be it.
>>> > 3) Metrics for success >>> > Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF >>> work, >>> > and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on >>> this >>> > upfront will create focus and clarity.
>>> Agreed. Deadline for the CLA is easy, as long as we maintain the same >>> level of commitment from those driving this effort (which I think we >>> will). Setting targets for existing specs is much trickier given the >>> number of corporations involved, but more importantly, the fact that >>> since OAuth 1.0 and OpenID 2.0 were finalized, no other community spec >>> was declared final (for whatever reason).
>> Cool. Well maybe the OWF can use its influence to speed up the process of >> these specs. It sets a deadline saying "we want x to be achieved by then" - >> and if it can't, the OWF throws its resources at the community to try to >> speed up the process. That's where I see the value of the OWF as an >> incubator of emerging specifications.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. >> To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
Agreed — I don't think it's a solution to the funding problem, but it does force people to put teeth into the game. Even a nominal fee ($5) would probably have a net positive effect on participation.
> I don't think that the OpenID Foundation has been very successful with its > membership model. I personally think that we can fund organizations like > this one via sponsorship versus needing to sell memberships.
> --David
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Brady Brim-DeForest <brad...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> As far as membership concerns go, I would not personally be opposed to the >> OpenID Foundation model — requiring a nominal membership fee from members.
>> A membership fee creates a different type of engagement in many cases >> ("I'm going to get my money's worth!") as well as providing some ongoing >> operating capital.
>> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Elias Bizannes < >> elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:
>>>> Thanks Elias.
>>>> On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > 1) Governance revisited >>>> > I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. >>>> I >>>> > want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current >>>> > governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. >>>> > The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the >>>> major >>>> > standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this >>>> reason, is >>>> > the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I >>>> appreciate >>>> > it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is >>>> not >>>> > going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the >>>> 'peer' >>>> > approval model has more cost than benefit.
>>>> Care you put an alternative proposal on the table? Is this simply a >>>> matter of appearances? So far there are only 2 people I know who asked >>>> to be members and didn't get a vote yet (because of lack of resources/ >>>> interest running one). If we fixed this and held a vote within a month >>>> of every nomination, would that solve your issue? So far, I think only >>>> 2 people asked to be members and got declined (neither one bothered to >>>> fill in the application).
>>>> I don't have a strong objection to changing the model, especially in >>>> the context of reconsidering what the purpose of this organization is. >>>> But I am not a fan of change for the sake of appearances. The model >>>> was selected based on Apache because at the time, we were going to >>>> build an "Apache for specifications". That meant strong reliance on >>>> meritocracy. At this point after two years, it is not clear if this is >>>> still the right or practical purpose of this organization.
>>> So the options are: >>> - anyone that wants to, become a member >>> - anyone that completes X hurdle, becomes a member (such as, x >>> contribution to committees).
>>> As opposed to: >>> - you only become a member if other member's accept you.
>>> At the DataPortability Project, we use the first option and it's never >>> been a problem. It's hard to find volunteers, let alone people that actually >>> bother to contribute. >>> I can sympathise with the second option, and given the context, would >>> recommend that as the way forward (I think each group has it's own culture >>> and you can't copy and paste others). So people need to demonstrate that >>> they've made an objective and demonstrative contribution to the OWF and the >>> community (how we quantify that is hard). If they pass X hurdle, then they >>> may apply to the secretary of the board for membership
>>> So yes, it does do more for appearances than anything else. But >>> appearances shape perception - and the perception right now is that the OWF >>> is not open. It's my personal gripe with the OWF, but it also is the >>> specific reason why this important stakeholder institution will not support >>> the OWF.
>>>> > 2) Identity clarification >>>> > Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? >>>> Is it >>>> > a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style >>>> of >>>> > technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly >>>> heading >>>> > towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it >>>> answer >>>> > the third one and what that means.
>>>> What do *you* think it should be? What do *you* need?
>>> I want open standards, but not all (defacto) standards are open yet - the >>> OWF provides the mechanism to help them achieve that status. If the OWF can >>> be the copyright holder for community-driven specifications, than that to me >>> is brilliant.
>>> We don't need another standard's body. And I've already voiced my opinion >>> about the "open web" brand, but I'm not going to fight it, as it's a Google >>> powered brand now and if it sticks then so be it.
>>>> > 3) Metrics for success >>>> > Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF >>>> work, >>>> > and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on >>>> this >>>> > upfront will create focus and clarity.
>>>> Agreed. Deadline for the CLA is easy, as long as we maintain the same >>>> level of commitment from those driving this effort (which I think we >>>> will). Setting targets for existing specs is much trickier given the >>>> number of corporations involved, but more importantly, the fact that >>>> since OAuth 1.0 and OpenID 2.0 were finalized, no other community spec >>>> was declared final (for whatever reason).
>>> Cool. Well maybe the OWF can use its influence to speed up the process of >>> these specs. It sets a deadline saying "we want x to be achieved by then" - >>> and if it can't, the OWF throws its resources at the community to try to >>> speed up the process. That's where I see the value of the OWF as an >>> incubator of emerging specifications.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. >> To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
I disagree strongly. The market has already set the price for entry into "open web standards" organizations discussions at $0 - microformats.org, whatwg.org etc.
Charging a fee (even $5) would just get OWF ignored and ridiculed as yet another pseudo-pay-for-play org/scam and likely have a net *negative* effect on participation. Might have worked 20 years ago.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brady Brim-DeForest <brad...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:19:05 To: <open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What do you want from the OWF board?
Agreed — I don't think it's a solution to the funding problem, but it does
force people to put teeth into the game. Even a nominal fee ($5) would
probably have a net positive effect on participation.
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:15 AM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I don't think that the OpenID Foundation has been very successful with its
> membership model. I personally think that we can fund organizations like
> this one via sponsorship versus needing to sell memberships.
> --David
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Brady Brim-DeForest <brad...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> As far as membership concerns go, I would not personally be opposed to the
>> OpenID Foundation model — requiring a nominal membership fee from members.
>> A membership fee creates a different type of engagement in many cases
>> ("I'm going to get my money's worth!") as well as providing some ongoing
>> operating capital.
>> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Elias Bizannes <
>> elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:
>>>> Thanks Elias.
>>>> On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > 1) Governance revisited
>>>> > I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF.
>>>> I
>>>> > want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current
>>>> > governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership.
>>>> > The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the
>>>> major
>>>> > standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this
>>>> reason, is
>>>> > the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I
>>>> appreciate
>>>> > it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is
>>>> not
>>>> > going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the
>>>> 'peer'
>>>> > approval model has more cost than benefit.
>>>> Care you put an alternative proposal on the table? Is this simply a
>>>> matter of appearances? So far there are only 2 people I know who asked
>>>> to be members and didn't get a vote yet (because of lack of resources/
>>>> interest running one). If we fixed this and held a vote within a month
>>>> of every nomination, would that solve your issue? So far, I think only
>>>> 2 people asked to be members and got declined (neither one bothered to
>>>> fill in the application).
>>>> I don't have a strong objection to changing the model, especially in
>>>> the context of reconsidering what the purpose of this organization is.
>>>> But I am not a fan of change for the sake of appearances. The model
>>>> was selected based on Apache because at the time, we were going to
>>>> build an "Apache for specifications". That meant strong reliance on
>>>> meritocracy. At this point after two years, it is not clear if this is
>>>> still the right or practical purpose of this organization.
>>> So the options are:
>>> - anyone that wants to, become a member
>>> - anyone that completes X hurdle, becomes a member (such as, x
>>> contribution to committees).
>>> As opposed to:
>>> - you only become a member if other member's accept you.
>>> At the DataPortability Project, we use the first option and it's never
>>> been a problem. It's hard to find volunteers, let alone people that actually
>>> bother to contribute.
>>> I can sympathise with the second option, and given the context, would
>>> recommend that as the way forward (I think each group has it's own culture
>>> and you can't copy and paste others). So people need to demonstrate that
>>> they've made an objective and demonstrative contribution to the OWF and the
>>> community (how we quantify that is hard). If they pass X hurdle, then they
>>> may apply to the secretary of the board for membership
>>> So yes, it does do more for appearances than anything else. But
>>> appearances shape perception - and the perception right now is that the OWF
>>> is not open. It's my personal gripe with the OWF, but it also is the
>>> specific reason why this important stakeholder institution will not support
>>> the OWF.
>>>> > 2) Identity clarification
>>>> > Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications?
>>>> Is it
>>>> > a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style
>>>> of
>>>> > technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly
>>>> heading
>>>> > towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it
>>>> answer
>>>> > the third one and what that means.
>>>> What do *you* think it should be? What do *you* need?
>>> I want open standards, but not all (defacto) standards are open yet - the
>>> OWF provides the mechanism to help them achieve that status. If the OWF can
>>> be the copyright holder for community-driven specifications, than that to me
>>> is brilliant.
>>> We don't need another standard's body. And I've already voiced my opinion
>>> about the "open web" brand, but I'm not going to fight it, as it's a Google
>>> powered brand now and if it sticks then so be it.
>>>> > 3) Metrics for success
>>>> > Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF
>>>> work,
>>>> > and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on
>>>> this
>>>> > upfront will create focus and clarity.
>>>> Agreed. Deadline for the CLA is easy, as long as we maintain the same
>>>> level of commitment from those driving this effort (which I think we
>>>> will). Setting targets for existing specs is much trickier given the
>>>> number of corporations involved, but more importantly, the fact that
>>>> since OAuth 1.0 and OpenID 2.0 were finalized, no other community spec
>>>> was declared final (for whatever reason).
>>> Cool. Well maybe the OWF can use its influence to speed up the process of
>>> these specs. It sets a deadline saying "we want x to be achieved by then" -
>>> and if it can't, the OWF throws its resources at the community to try to
>>> speed up the process. That's where I see the value of the OWF as an
>>> incubator of emerging specifications.
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
I really don't care about that - I think there is an argument to be made about how It's better for the *people* to pay for open facilities than *corporations*. Quality infrastructure costs money and resources. I would argue that if you and one or two other people left microformats.org, it would die.
But charging a fee is more likely going to cost the foundation more in accountant fees and taxes than it will raise.
EHL
From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tantek Celik Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 11:34 AM To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What do you want from the OWF board?
I disagree strongly. The market has already set the price for entry into "open web standards" organizations discussions at $0 - microformats.org, whatwg.org etc.
Charging a fee (even $5) would just get OWF ignored and ridiculed as yet another pseudo-pay-for-play org/scam and likely have a net *negative* effect on participation. Might have worked 20 years ago.
Tantek ________________________________ From: Brady Brim-DeForest <brad...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:19:05 -0800 To: <open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: What do you want from the OWF board?
Agreed - I don't think it's a solution to the funding problem, but it does force people to put teeth into the game. Even a nominal fee ($5) would probably have a net positive effect on participation.
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:15 AM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com<mailto:record...@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't think that the OpenID Foundation has been very successful with its membership model. I personally think that we can fund organizations like this one via sponsorship versus needing to sell memberships.
--David
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Brady Brim-DeForest <brad...@gmail.com<mailto:brad...@gmail.com>> wrote: As far as membership concerns go, I would not personally be opposed to the OpenID Foundation model - requiring a nominal membership fee from members.
A membership fee creates a different type of engagement in many cases ("I'm going to get my money's worth!") as well as providing some ongoing operating capital.
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com<mailto:elias.bizan...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com<mailto:e...@hueniverse.com>> wrote: Thanks Elias.
On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com<mailto:elias.bizan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 1) Governance revisited > I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. I > want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current > governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. > The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the major > standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this reason, is > the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I appreciate > it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is not > going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the 'peer' > approval model has more cost than benefit.
Care you put an alternative proposal on the table? Is this simply a matter of appearances? So far there are only 2 people I know who asked to be members and didn't get a vote yet (because of lack of resources/ interest running one). If we fixed this and held a vote within a month of every nomination, would that solve your issue? So far, I think only 2 people asked to be members and got declined (neither one bothered to fill in the application).
I don't have a strong objection to changing the model, especially in the context of reconsidering what the purpose of this organization is. But I am not a fan of change for the sake of appearances. The model was selected based on Apache because at the time, we were going to build an "Apache for specifications". That meant strong reliance on meritocracy. At this point after two years, it is not clear if this is still the right or practical purpose of this organization.
So the options are: - anyone that wants to, become a member - anyone that completes X hurdle, becomes a member (such as, x contribution to committees).
As opposed to: - you only become a member if other member's accept you.
At the DataPortability Project, we use the first option and it's never been a problem. It's hard to find volunteers, let alone people that actually bother to contribute. I can sympathise with the second option, and given the context, would recommend that as the way forward (I think each group has it's own culture and you can't copy and paste others). So people need to demonstrate that they've made an objective and demonstrative contribution to the OWF and the community (how we quantify that is hard). If they pass X hurdle, then they may apply to the secretary of the board for membership
So yes, it does do more for appearances than anything else. But appearances shape perception - and the perception right now is that the OWF is not open. It's my personal gripe with the OWF, but it also is the specific reason why this important stakeholder institution will not support the OWF.
> 2) Identity clarification > Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? Is it > a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of > technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly heading > towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it answer > the third one and what that means.
What do *you* think it should be? What do *you* need?
I want open standards, but not all (defacto) standards are open yet - the OWF provides the mechanism to help them achieve that status. If the OWF can be the copyright holder for community-driven specifications, than that to me is brilliant.
We don't need another standard's body. And I've already voiced my opinion about the "open web" brand, but I'm not going to fight it, as it's a Google powered brand now and if it sticks then so be it.
> 3) Metrics for success > Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF work, > and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on this > upfront will create focus and clarity.
Agreed. Deadline for the CLA is easy, as long as we maintain the same level of commitment from those driving this effort (which I think we will). Setting targets for existing specs is much trickier given the number of corporations involved, but more importantly, the fact that since OAuth 1.0 and OpenID 2.0 were finalized, no other community spec was declared final (for whatever reason).
Cool. Well maybe the OWF can use its influence to speed up the process of these specs. It sets a deadline saying "we want x to be achieved by then" - and if it can't, the OWF throws its resources at the community to try to speed up the process. That's where I see the value of the OWF as an incubator of emerging specifications. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com<mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com> . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:open-web-discuss%2Buns ubscribe@googlegroups.com>. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com<mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com> . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:open-web-discuss%2Buns ubscribe@googlegroups.com>. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com<mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com> . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:open-web-discuss%2Buns ubscribe@googlegroups.com>. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com<mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com> . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:open-web-discuss+unsub scribe@googlegroups.com>. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com<mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com> . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<mailto:open-web-discuss+unsub scribe@googlegroups.com>. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
I disagree as well, I don't think a fee would be helpful. If people donate money or organizations want to become sponsors, that's another story. But making people pay - even a nominal fee - is not going to increase participation.
> I disagree strongly. The market has already set the price for entry into "open web standards" organizations discussions at $0 - microformats.org, whatwg.org etc.
> Charging a fee (even $5) would just get OWF ignored and ridiculed as yet another pseudo-pay-for-play org/scam and likely have a net *negative* effect on participation. Might have worked 20 years ago.
> Tantek
> From: Brady Brim-DeForest <brad...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:19:05 -0800 > To: <open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: What do you want from the OWF board?
> Agreed — I don't think it's a solution to the funding problem, but it does force people to put teeth into the game. Even a nominal fee ($5) would probably have a net positive effect on participation.
> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:15 AM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think that the OpenID Foundation has been very successful with its membership model. I personally think that we can fund organizations like this one via sponsorship versus needing to sell memberships.
> --David
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Brady Brim-DeForest <brad...@gmail.com> wrote: > As far as membership concerns go, I would not personally be opposed to the OpenID Foundation model — requiring a nominal membership fee from members.
> A membership fee creates a different type of engagement in many cases ("I'm going to get my money's worth!") as well as providing some ongoing operating capital.
> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: > Thanks Elias.
> On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1) Governance revisited > > I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. I > > want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current > > governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. > > The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the major > > standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this reason, is > > the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I appreciate > > it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is not > > going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the 'peer' > > approval model has more cost than benefit.
> Care you put an alternative proposal on the table? Is this simply a > matter of appearances? So far there are only 2 people I know who asked > to be members and didn't get a vote yet (because of lack of resources/ > interest running one). If we fixed this and held a vote within a month > of every nomination, would that solve your issue? So far, I think only > 2 people asked to be members and got declined (neither one bothered to > fill in the application).
> I don't have a strong objection to changing the model, especially in > the context of reconsidering what the purpose of this organization is. > But I am not a fan of change for the sake of appearances. The model > was selected based on Apache because at the time, we were going to > build an "Apache for specifications". That meant strong reliance on > meritocracy. At this point after two years, it is not clear if this is > still the right or practical purpose of this organization.
> So the options are: > - anyone that wants to, become a member > - anyone that completes X hurdle, becomes a member (such as, x contribution to committees).
> As opposed to: > - you only become a member if other member's accept you.
> At the DataPortability Project, we use the first option and it's never been a problem. It's hard to find volunteers, let alone people that actually bother to contribute. > I can sympathise with the second option, and given the context, would recommend that as the way forward (I think each group has it's own culture and you can't copy and paste others). So people need to demonstrate that they've made an objective and demonstrative contribution to the OWF and the community (how we quantify that is hard). If they pass X hurdle, then they may apply to the secretary of the board for membership
> So yes, it does do more for appearances than anything else. But appearances shape perception - and the perception right now is that the OWF is not open. It's my personal gripe with the OWF, but it also is the specific reason why this important stakeholder institution will not support the OWF.
> > 2) Identity clarification > > Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? Is it > > a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of > > technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly heading > > towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it answer > > the third one and what that means.
> What do *you* think it should be? What do *you* need?
> I want open standards, but not all (defacto) standards are open yet - the OWF provides the mechanism to help them achieve that status. If the OWF can be the copyright holder for community-driven specifications, than that to me is brilliant.
> We don't need another standard's body. And I've already voiced my opinion about the "open web" brand, but I'm not going to fight it, as it's a Google powered brand now and if it sticks then so be it.
> > 3) Metrics for success > > Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF work, > > and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on this > > upfront will create focus and clarity.
> Agreed. Deadline for the CLA is easy, as long as we maintain the same > level of commitment from those driving this effort (which I think we > will). Setting targets for existing specs is much trickier given the > number of corporations involved, but more importantly, the fact that > since OAuth 1.0 and OpenID 2.0 were finalized, no other community spec > was declared final (for whatever reason).
> Cool. Well maybe the OWF can use its influence to speed up the process of these specs. It sets a deadline saying "we want x to be achieved by then" - and if it can't, the OWF throws its resources at the community to try to speed up the process. That's where I see the value of the OWF as an incubator of emerging specifications.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
The OWF's value is in bootstrapping open communities. It shouldn't have a fee model, because that's exactly what's holding back community specs from going to the existing standards's process. The reason I argued that the DataPortability Project not have a fee model is because it creates overhead, which in turns needs more money, which is turn creates more overhead. Keep something lean and hungry and the smart people involved will keep it going. And that's what the OWF needs - smart people, not an office.
> I really don’t care about that – I think there is an argument to be made > about how It’s better for the *people* to pay for open facilities than > *corporations*. Quality infrastructure costs money and resources. I would > argue that if you and one or two other people left microformats.org, it > would die.
> But charging a fee is more likely going to cost the foundation more in > accountant fees and taxes than it will raise.
> EHL
> *From:* open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto: > open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Tantek Celik > *Sent:* Monday, January 25, 2010 11:34 AM
> *To:* open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: What do you want from the OWF board?
> I disagree strongly. The market has already set the price for entry into > "open web standards" organizations discussions at $0 - microformats.org, > whatwg.org etc.
> Charging a fee (even $5) would just get OWF ignored and ridiculed as yet > another pseudo-pay-for-play org/scam and likely have a net *negative* effect > on participation. Might have worked 20 years ago.
> *Subject: *Re: What do you want from the OWF board?
> Agreed — I don't think it's a solution to the funding problem, but it does > force people to put teeth into the game. Even a nominal fee ($5) would > probably have a net positive effect on participation.
> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:15 AM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> I don't think that the OpenID Foundation has been very successful with its > membership model. I personally think that we can fund organizations like > this one via sponsorship versus needing to sell memberships.
> --David
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Brady Brim-DeForest <brad...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> As far as membership concerns go, I would not personally be opposed to the > OpenID Foundation model — requiring a nominal membership fee from members.
> A membership fee creates a different type of engagement in many cases ("I'm > going to get my money's worth!") as well as providing some ongoing operating > capital.
> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> > wrote:
> Thanks Elias.
> On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1) Governance revisited > > I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. I > > want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current > > governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. > > The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the > major > > standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this reason, > is > > the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I appreciate > > it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is not > > going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the > 'peer' > > approval model has more cost than benefit.
> Care you put an alternative proposal on the table? Is this simply a > matter of appearances? So far there are only 2 people I know who asked > to be members and didn't get a vote yet (because of lack of resources/ > interest running one). If we fixed this and held a vote within a month > of every nomination, would that solve your issue? So far, I think only > 2 people asked to be members and got declined (neither one bothered to > fill in the application).
> I don't have a strong objection to changing the model, especially in > the context of reconsidering what the purpose of this organization is. > But I am not a fan of change for the sake of appearances. The model > was selected based on Apache because at the time, we were going to > build an "Apache for specifications". That meant strong reliance on > meritocracy. At this point after two years, it is not clear if this is > still the right or practical purpose of this organization.
> So the options are: > - anyone that wants to, become a member > - anyone that completes X hurdle, becomes a member (such as, x contribution > to committees).
> As opposed to: > - you only become a member if other member's accept you.
> At the DataPortability Project, we use the first option and it's never been > a problem. It's hard to find volunteers, let alone people that actually > bother to contribute. > I can sympathise with the second option, and given the context, would > recommend that as the way forward (I think each group has it's own culture > and you can't copy and paste others). So people need to demonstrate that > they've made an objective and demonstrative contribution to the OWF and the > community (how we quantify that is hard). If they pass X hurdle, then they > may apply to the secretary of the board for membership
> So yes, it does do more for appearances than anything else. But appearances > shape perception - and the perception right now is that the OWF is not open. > It's my personal gripe with the OWF, but it also is the specific reason why > this important stakeholder institution will not support the OWF.
> > 2) Identity clarification > > Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? Is > it > > a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of > > technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly > heading > > towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it > answer > > the third one and what that means.
> What do *you* think it should be? What do *you* need?
> I want open standards, but not all (defacto) standards are open yet - the > OWF provides the mechanism to help them achieve that status. If the OWF can > be the copyright holder for community-driven specifications, than that to me > is brilliant.
> We don't need another standard's body. And I've already voiced my opinion > about the "open web" brand, but I'm not going to fight it, as it's a Google > powered brand now and if it sticks then so be it.
> > 3) Metrics for success > > Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF work, > > and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on this > > upfront will create focus and clarity.
> Agreed. Deadline for the CLA is easy, as long as we maintain the same > level of commitment from those driving this effort (which I think we > will). Setting targets for existing specs is much trickier given the > number of corporations involved, but more importantly, the fact that > since OAuth 1.0 and OpenID 2.0 were finalized, no other community spec > was declared final (for whatever reason).
> Cool. Well maybe the OWF can use its influence to speed up the process of > these specs. It sets a deadline saying "we want x to be achieved by then" - > and if it can't, the OWF throws its resources at the community to try to > speed up the process. That's where I see the value of the OWF as an > incubator of emerging specifications.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > open-web-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at
I agree that a membership fee (given the current state of the value that the OWF offers) would likely be of limited success at this point, and sponsorships can give the perception of influence. However, the simple fact remains that it takes financial resources properly build and promote an organization which will achieve the levels of trust necessary to be viable, so it begs some serious discussion. I also think that the goals of the organization, properly articulated, would negate any realistic concern over undue influence and potential members would be more likely to want to donate (or "subscribe") to support the organization. Creative Commons was mentioned today in another thread; CC is a terrific example of a structure and mission most similar to the goals of the OWF as I understand them. I wonder what the overall feeling of the community would be to partnering with them?
I would ultimately like to see a strategic communications and marketing plan as well as a platform for managing administration of the community.
I envision that the plan would include elements that educate and initiate the future members of the community. The plan would of course need to be derived from the the goals of the organization, which are arguably in somewhat of a state of flux. I assume that one of the items of the forthcoming Board meeting will be to solidify the objectives of the organization given a year's worth of activity and input.
I've been doing some research and a little outreach re: platform solutions for managing standards communities. I may have some providers willing to help once the decision's been made to move in that direction. I think it would be very valuable to have this piece since it should help to reduce the amount of effort dealing with administrata/membership/votes/collaboration/etc, as opposed to addressing organizational goals.
> The OWF's value is in bootstrapping open communities. It shouldn't have a > fee model, because that's exactly what's holding back community specs from > going to the existing standards's process. The reason I argued that the > DataPortability Project not have a fee model is because it creates overhead, > which in turns needs more money, which is turn creates more overhead. Keep > something lean and hungry and the smart people involved will keep it going. > And that's what the OWF needs - smart people, not an office.
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote:
>> I really don’t care about that – I think there is an argument to be made >> about how It’s better for the *people* to pay for open facilities than >> *corporations*. Quality infrastructure costs money and resources. I would >> argue that if you and one or two other people left microformats.org, it >> would die.
>> But charging a fee is more likely going to cost the foundation more in >> accountant fees and taxes than it will raise.
>> EHL
>> *From:* open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto: >> open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Tantek Celik >> *Sent:* Monday, January 25, 2010 11:34 AM
>> *To:* open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: What do you want from the OWF board?
>> I disagree strongly. The market has already set the price for entry into >> "open web standards" organizations discussions at $0 - microformats.org, >> whatwg.org etc.
>> Charging a fee (even $5) would just get OWF ignored and ridiculed as yet >> another pseudo-pay-for-play org/scam and likely have a net *negative* effect >> on participation. Might have worked 20 years ago.
>> *Subject: *Re: What do you want from the OWF board?
>> Agreed — I don't think it's a solution to the funding problem, but it does >> force people to put teeth into the game. Even a nominal fee ($5) would >> probably have a net positive effect on participation.
>> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:15 AM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> I don't think that the OpenID Foundation has been very successful with its >> membership model. I personally think that we can fund organizations like >> this one via sponsorship versus needing to sell memberships.
>> --David
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Brady Brim-DeForest <brad...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> As far as membership concerns go, I would not personally be opposed to the >> OpenID Foundation model — requiring a nominal membership fee from members.
>> A membership fee creates a different type of engagement in many cases >> ("I'm going to get my money's worth!") as well as providing some ongoing >> operating capital.
>> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Elias Bizannes < >> elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> >> wrote:
>> Thanks Elias.
>> On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 1) Governance revisited >> > I believe this issue matters for the long term credibility of the OWF. I >> > want at the very least an exploration of the issue about the current >> > governance model, specifically as it pertains to membership. >> > The very fact I've had whispered in my ear by a staffer at one of the >> major >> > standards organisations that they won't support the OWF for this reason, >> is >> > the cause of concern. I understand why it is how it is - and I >> appreciate >> > it's following the Apache model - but I also think opening it up is not >> > going to see a degradation in quality of the membership. I think the >> 'peer' >> > approval model has more cost than benefit.
>> Care you put an alternative proposal on the table? Is this simply a >> matter of appearances? So far there are only 2 people I know who asked >> to be members and didn't get a vote yet (because of lack of resources/ >> interest running one). If we fixed this and held a vote within a month >> of every nomination, would that solve your issue? So far, I think only >> 2 people asked to be members and got declined (neither one bothered to >> fill in the application).
>> I don't have a strong objection to changing the model, especially in >> the context of reconsidering what the purpose of this organization is. >> But I am not a fan of change for the sake of appearances. The model >> was selected based on Apache because at the time, we were going to >> build an "Apache for specifications". That meant strong reliance on >> meritocracy. At this point after two years, it is not clear if this is >> still the right or practical purpose of this organization.
>> So the options are: >> - anyone that wants to, become a member >> - anyone that completes X hurdle, becomes a member (such as, x >> contribution to committees).
>> As opposed to: >> - you only become a member if other member's accept you.
>> At the DataPortability Project, we use the first option and it's never >> been a problem. It's hard to find volunteers, let alone people that actually >> bother to contribute. >> I can sympathise with the second option, and given the context, would >> recommend that as the way forward (I think each group has it's own culture >> and you can't copy and paste others). So people need to demonstrate that >> they've made an objective and demonstrative contribution to the OWF and the >> community (how we quantify that is hard). If they pass X hurdle, then they >> may apply to the secretary of the board for membership
>> So yes, it does do more for appearances than anything else. But >> appearances shape perception - and the perception right now is that the OWF >> is not open. It's my personal gripe with the OWF, but it also is the >> specific reason why this important stakeholder institution will not support >> the OWF.
>> > 2) Identity clarification >> > Is the OWF a virtual corporation to protect community specifications? Is >> it >> > a standards organisation? Is it a brand to represent a certain style of >> > technology? It launched to the world as the first one, it's clearly >> heading >> > towards being the second one - but it's not going to get far until it >> answer >> > the third one and what that means.
>> What do *you* think it should be? What do *you* need?
>> I want open standards, but not all (defacto) standards are open yet - the >> OWF provides the mechanism to help them achieve that status. If the OWF can >> be the copyright holder for community-driven specifications, than that to me >> is brilliant.
>> We don't need another standard's body. And I've already voiced my opinion >> about the "open web" brand, but I'm not going to fight it, as it's a Google >> powered brand now and if it sticks then so be it.
>> > 3) Metrics for success >> > Deadlines for the CLA, targets for existing spec's to adopt the OWF >> work, >> > and what would success look like is 2010 drew to an end. Agreeing on >> this >> > upfront will create focus and clarity.
>> Agreed. Deadline for the CLA is easy, as long as we maintain the same >> level of commitment from those driving this effort (which I think we >> will). Setting targets for existing
