New: WordPress Foundation

[Chris Messina]

Matt Mullenweg just launched the WordPress Foundation:

http://wordpress.org/development/2010/01/wordpress-foundation/
http://wordpressfoundation.org/

It was apparently started with a donation from WordCampNYC, since they
pulled in too much money and needed somewhere to put it!

http://wordpressfoundation.org/2010/our-first-donation/

Chris

[Marc Canter]

so what you're saying is that Google is gonna start POURING money into helping out on.......

what?

--
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...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.

[Jesse Stay]

Has someone pointed Matt over to this group?  Seems they felt a need to reinvent the wheel for some reason.  I'm curious why, and if it was just a lack of knowledge on their behalf.

--Jesse

--

[Elias Bizannes]

Sorry but I disagree Jesse.  

Mature open source code for one of the biggest CMS platforms on the web is very different from a standards incubator for emerging data specfications. 

Sure there might be opportunity for shared overheard (and the other year the identity community was tempted with NewOrg and which is now the Kantara initiative) but let's not forget putting eveything under the same umbrella not only causes politics for competing priorties and resources but it also diminishes a groups identity.

It's inevitable but I also think groups like OpenID need to say independent as well. Centralising makes one group too powerful, and as Lord Acton said: all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Let's follow socially and not just technologically, the Internet and the web's architecture of decentralization.

But that's just my $0.02 :)    

Sent by my iPhone

[Scott Wilson]

On 25 Jan 2010, at 05:09, Elias Bizannes wrote:

Sorry but I disagree Jesse.  

Mature open source code for one of the biggest CMS platforms on the web is very different from a standards incubator for emerging data specfications. 

+1

Sure there might be opportunity for shared overheard (and the other year the identity community was tempted with NewOrg and which is now the Kantara initiative) but let's not forget putting eveything under the same umbrella not only causes politics for competing priorties and resources but it also diminishes a groups identity.

It's inevitable but I also think groups like OpenID need to say independent as well. Centralising makes one group too powerful, and as Lord Acton said: all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Let's follow socially and not just technologically, the Internet and the web's architecture of decentralization.

+1

(Incidentally, I think OWF is a lot more like Creative Commons than ASF. That's a good thing.)

[Lawrence Rosen]

Scott Wilson wrote:

(Incidentally, I think OWF is a lot more like Creative Commons than ASF. That's a good thing.)

 

I know that some others of us have been thinking about that also. I'd very much like to hear how Scott and the rest of you compare OWF and either Creative Commons or ASF.

 

I intended to bring this very issue up as a discussion topic at our board meeting later this week. It would be helpful to have opinions of others among our members to consider.

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242    Cell: 707-478-8932

Apache Software Foundation, member and counsel (www.apache.org)

Open Web Foundation, board member (www.openwebfoundation.org)

Stanford University, Instructor in Law

Author, Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law (Prentice Hall 2004)

 

From: open-web...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott Wilson
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 2:40 AM
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: New: WordPress Foundation

<snip>

[Gabe Wachob]

This is a great analogy and describes the mental model that I have. I
too hope this is the focus of our meeting on board meeting on Friday.

> --
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en.
>

--
Gabe Wachob / gwa...@wachob.com \ http://beatslacker.com

[Melvin Carvalho]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Jesse Stay <jess...@gmail.com> wrote:

Has someone pointed Matt over to this group?  Seems they felt a need to reinvent the wheel for some reason.  I'm curious why, and if it was just a lack of knowledge on their behalf.

Just out of curiosity, is the GPL (Wordpress) compatible with OWF standard licencing?
 

[Chris Messina]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvinc...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Jesse Stay <jess...@gmail.com> wrote:

Has someone pointed Matt over to this group?  Seems they felt a need to reinvent the wheel for some reason.  I'm curious why, and if it was just a lack of knowledge on their behalf.

Just out of curiosity, is the GPL (Wordpress) compatible with OWF standard licencing?

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be. Then again, OWF licensing really revolves around patents moreso than copyright, so we might be talking about grapefruits and oranges.

Chris

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate, Google

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

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

[Chris Messina]

I've long said that OWF is like Creative Commons in that we provide licenses for a certain vertical in the industry... it helps position us vis-a-vis Apache — which is [more] focused on source code.

Chris

[Jesse Stay]

Am I right assuming OWF is more targeted towards companies wanting to provide APIs towards developers?  If so, why not call it the Open API Foundation?  I'm just trying to get a grasp on what exactly the OWF is and what its purpose is.  From my reading that's what I got. (still learning...)

Jesse

[Chris Messina]

Yeah, naming is always a bitch. ;)

I'd argue that offering open-yet-single-provider APIs is expressly NOT our goal... but that interop creating deeper integration layers for the web is. So, calling ourselves the Open API Foundation would likely lead to a lot of companies dumping their APIs on us and calling them "open" and doing none of the work to adopt or absorb other people's work... which is the underlying point.

While "Open Web Foundation" is fairly high minded and slightly over-the-top, it points to our raison-d'etre: to expand the size, scope, and functionality of the web by promoting interoperability, reuse, transparent, and open/royalty-free technologies, formats, and protocols. Which goes beyond, in my estimation, APIs.

Chris

[Tantek Celik]

The OWF / Creative Commons analogy makes the most sense to me as well. E.g.:

CC does not make content (other than content about itself), it makes licenses that others can use to share and open up their content.

OWF does not make standards specifications, it makes licenses/agreements that others can use to share and open up their standards specifications.

Tantek

---

From: Chris Messina <chris....@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:45:50 -0800

To: <open-web...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: OWF is like ....

[Jesse Stay]

I think so long as the focus isn't just on APIs that makes sense.  My worry is that companies like Google and Facebook, Yahoo, and others will use membership in the OWF as solely a PR tool, making people think they support "open technologies" (which I know Google, Facebook, and Yahoo do on much of their technology anyway so I'm not calling them out at all on this), when in reality they're just supporting an open, standards-based API document that developers can be familiar with and know what they're getting into.

If it's much more than that (I think we need to be specific somewhere - it is quite vague right now) and developers who embrace the foundation's documents understand what it is, I think OWF makes sense.

Jesse

[Tantek Celik]

> My worry is that companies like Google and Facebook, Yahoo, and others will use membership in the OWF as solely a PR tool

Last I checked, only *people* were/are members of the OWF, not companies (recent US Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding).

This is a big difference between OWF, and industry consortia like W3C, or industry membership orgs like DataPortability.org.

Tantek

---

From: Jesse Stay <jess...@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:14:19 -0700

To: <open-web...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: OWF is like ....

[Nathan DiNiro]

Tantek,

While it is an obvious difference, what do you see as the value of that difference given the OWF's mission?

-Nate

EM: uncl...@gmail.com
TW: @unclenate
PH: 503-449-9943

[Jesse Stay]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Tantek Celik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:

> My worry is that companies like Google and Facebook, Yahoo, and others will use membership in the OWF as solely a PR tool

Last I checked, only *people* were/are members of the OWF, not companies (recent US Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding).

This is a big difference between OWF, and industry consortia like W3C, or industry membership orgs like DataPortability.org.

Tantek, that's fine - but I see Google and Facebook and others now announcing their involvement in the OWF as Press releases.  I can see companies using the "we have employees as members of the OWF" as tools to get exposure for their company.  I think being a member needs some sort of clarification as to what that means.

Jesse 

[Lawrence Rosen]

Jesse Stay wrote:

> I think being a member needs some sort of clarification as to what that means.

 

You've already identified the PR benefit that comes to companies because of their involvement with OWF. I'm personally not upset with that.

 

As an individual, what would you expect to get out of being called a "member" of OWF? A fair number of people already applied for membership (and most were accepted), so there seems to be a demand for some sort of badge for people to carry.

 

/Larry

 

 

From: open-web...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Stay
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:39 PM
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OWF is like ....

 

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Tantek Celik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:

--

[Jesse Stay]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

Jesse Stay wrote:

> I think being a member needs some sort of clarification as to what that means.

 

You've already identified the PR benefit that comes to companies because of their involvement with OWF. I'm personally not upset with that.

 

As an individual, what would you expect to get out of being called a "member" of OWF? A fair number of people already applied for membership (and most were accepted), so there seems to be a demand for some sort of badge for people to carry.

 

/Larry

What are these people agreeing to though?  If I see them on the list, what perception can I gain from them being on the list?  Seems like an easy system to game right now if there is no agreement made.  As I mentioned, I don't know how I join in the first place so maybe there is some sort of agreement, but I want to know what that list means.  What is the definition of "being a member"?  Again, it's very unclear to me.

As to your question, I guess I'm asking the same thing.  I'm not sure it's that I'm looking to "get" something, but rather I should be expected to "give" something to become a member though.  In return I get the privilege of being on that list.

Jesse 

[Tantek Celik]

Nate,
Good question (and implied questions, e.g. "OWF's mission[?]") - good material for the OWF board mtg this Friday. -t

---

From: Nathan DiNiro <uncl...@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:32:09 -0800

[Nathan DiNiro]

I think that "what members are agreeing to" comes from the effort which I've mentioned in another thread... solidified organizational goals will provide a foundation for the development of activities and roles which align in support of the goals.

EM: uncl...@gmail.com
TW: @unclenate
PH: 503-449-9943

--

[David Recordon]

I don't think that's quite fair.  At Facebook we executed the OWF agreement OAuth 1.0a and WRAP.

--

[Brady Brim-DeForest]

Jesse, that may be the case with one company or another, but if they are implementing -- that's win-win for everyone. Plus, who's to say that having employees in the OWF (or another body) isn't having a positive effect internally (even if the results aren't immediately identifiable from outside)?

Sent from my iPhone

[Jesse Stay]

I'm not saying any of this is a bad thing.  I'm saying it needs to be clarified what membership means.  Who are these members and what have they agreed to?

[Jesse Stay]

David, I know that and I applaud Facebook for doing so (there's no bigger advocate for Facebook than myself!).  If it wasn't a press release though why announce the involvement in such efforts?  Again, I'm not even saying this is a bad thing - it's good that companies can feel that open standards give them a competitive advantage.  IMO that's the only way it makes sense (beyond cost savings) for companies to take advantage of these standards.  I think we should encourage that.  I'm just saying it's unclear what membership in OWF means.  No one has told me that yet.

Jesse

[DeWitt Clinton]

Sorry, there may have been some confusion then.

No companies are members of the OWF.  Only individuals are, and they run the Foundation.  Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and others all adopted the OWFa, and they each wrote blog posts about doing so in order to show support of our work.  Which was fantastic, and we thank them.

-DeWitt

[Chris Messina]

To build on what DeWitt said, for Jesse's (and others' benefit) — companies (of any size) doing a press release about their membership in the foundation can serve two functions:

1. bringing good press to the company

2. bringing legitimacy and awareness to the foundation

I wouldn't discount the value in the second function. That is, as many pointed out at the onset of this organization, there are plenty of other "standards bodies out there" — to which we replied, yes, indeed, but none quite like the OWF — which was created to meet a recurring industry need.

That companies have employees who join (as individuals) and the issue statements about it validates our efforts, by asserting to the broader industry that this effort is worthwhile and worthy of their employees' time. It goes without saying that the individual membership believe in this effort, but having companies bring awareness to our work expands our reach and demonstrates an alternative approach to developing new technologies.

In that sense, I think there's more symbiosis here than you're admitting to. While it would be good to spell out what membership means or entails — I do think that the name of the organization, and the individuals involved, speak to its values — though there is definitely much to be done to help clarify and codify them so that they sustain over time.

Chris

[Jesse Stay]

I agree Chris - thanks for the breakdown.  Please let me know if I can help in any of the clarification process.

Jesse

[Simon Phipps]

On Jan 25, 2010, at 19:27, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

Scott Wilson wrote:

(Incidentally, I think OWF is a lot more like Creative Commons than ASF. That's a good thing.)

 

I know that some others of us have been thinking about that also. I'd very much like to hear how Scott and the rest of you compare OWF and either Creative Commons or ASF.

From the outset I have seen OWF as a venue for the seeding and growing of specifications using a distinctive, individual-based approach and with the goal of being usable at the heart of open source implementations.  OWF is thus to me a venue with principles and templates rather than a set of abstract documents, and as such maps more to Apache than it does to Creative Commons.

In particular I would be concerned if the core principle of serving open source were to be minimised or lost. There are plenty of venues using or implying "open" and "standard" that produce work at best agnostic and at worst toxic to open source developers. We don't need another one; we need a home for open web specification-making, that respects open data, fosters open standards and facilitates open source implementation. That, I believe, is OWF.

S.

[Ross Gardler]

Whilst I've not been watching things closely enough here to make
comparisons/comments on this topic I would like to support Simons
comments by making an observation about the ASF:

The ASF is more about building community around a common set of
objectives rather than about software code. It is true that the outputs
are software, but that is because the common objectives revolve around
problems that are solved by software.

I don't see Creative Commons focussing on community in this way.

The fact that the OWF membership is currently unclear about whether it
is "like the ASF" or "like Creative Commons" is very interesting to me
as an observer.

Ross

[jle...@gmail.com]

As someone that is very interested in what OWF might produce, I truly hope the board is able to get a grip on everything that is being bounced around. The open standards innovation community needs help and OWF needs to get to work on this! Let’s get working with or without funding, with or without dedicated resources. We need a clear mission fast, then let’s get to work.

 

It sounds to me like what is needed is project list derived from our mission. Once we have a clear project list, we the community will participate and deliver!

 

My first email to this list, I hope it is taken in the spirit that it is intended.

 

--

Jose Leal | President and CEO

jo...@wikidomo.com | Tel:  1 (888) 311-3666 x701 | Mobile: +1  (416) 666-1855

wikiDOMO unmedia Ltd. | 1370 Don Mills Road, Suite 202, Toronto, ON, Canada  M3B 3N7