On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:13 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...
> Good thing we're not a standards body!
> Many people here are already familiar with the Apache Incubator process, but
> for newcomers, here are some good links to read on one model that works very
> well, and can probably be adapted to specifications:
> And the proposal guidelines:
> Which all fits within the general Apache framework, which is described
> extremely well here:
> Worth reading again as we get started. I'd also love to hear from the
> Apache members on this list as to what works in practice, and what, if
> anything, they wish they could change about the Incubator.
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Gabe Wachob <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
>> This group has to be thin (just IPR, and minimum critical mass for new
>> work) and wide (anyone can participate, nobody blackballs or blesses
>> specs, etc).
>> Most stds bodies are tall and skinny..
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>
>> > I completely agree.
>> > I think the key here is more about setting minimum requirements that are
>> > *not* about content, such as certain number of participants, the ability to
>> > find an experienced spec editor to sponsor/mentor the effort, getting some
>> > level of actual adoption before graduation. Basically - find ways to let the
>> > market guide us in an open way.
>> > EHL
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:47 PM
>> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > Subject: Re: Open Web Foundation characterization
>> > I'm looking forward to seeing your thoughts, Eran.
>> > The more this group goes outside just providing the legal/IPR
>> > framework, the more I get nervous.
>> > What exactly is the purpose of being a gatekeeper w/r/t competing
>> > specs? Why *not* let the market decide if two "competing" specs come
>> > out of efforts under the OWF umbrella? This org's purpose is not to
>> > promote a certain spec over another, except as to the "openness", right?
>> > I'm just really worried that once you get into the "this spec is
>> > blessed and this isn't", for any reasons other than IPR openness, you
>> > instantly become un-lightweight, and the purpose gets muddled.
>> > Furthermore, you likely end up turning away potential work that
>> > *could* be useful and would leverage the IPR framework in OWF.
>> > -Gabe
>> > On Jul 24, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>> >> I am going to spend tomorrow writing down about a lot of the
>> >> discussions and ideas that are driving this effort.
>> >> But for now, the simple answer is that we are going to come up with
>> >> a system that will answer these questions without really dealing
>> >> with them. For example, we can require a certain number of initial
>> >> contributors to start a project, or a certain number of
>> >> implementations, etc. The role of the foundation is to handle IPR in
>> >> a community friendly way (which doesn't exist today), but also to
>> >> assign experienced mentors to new projects. The incubation process
>> >> is not about the foundation forming any technical or economical
>> >> opinions.
>> >> I am a big believer in market forces and trust the open web
>> >> community to know when it should offer competing solutions and when
>> >> it should rally around an existing one. When bringing a project to
>> >> the foundation for incubation, the foundation is going to dedicate
>> >> some resources to help make the project more successful. Remember
>> >> that you will be able to take the legal documents and use them
>> >> outside the foundation if you so desire. But to get accepted you
>> >> will need to answer some question such as what exists today and why
>> >> it is not enough. But again, it will not be some foundation
>> >> committee that should review your application, but the community at
>> >> large.
>> >> For example, say I want to start a competing spec to OAuth. I can
>> >> just write it using the IPR policy the foundation will publish or
>> >> bring it for incubation. If I ask to incubate it, I am going to be
>> >> asked to say:
>> >> 1. Why isn't OAuth good enough?
>> >> 2. Did I propose my idea to the OAuth community?
>> >> 3. How is my solution better?
>> >> 4. Who is going to use it?
>> >> 5. Etc...
>> >> The idea is that at this point, to get into the foundation process,
>> >> I will need to convince enough people that my answers justify
>> >> another spec. If I can do that my project should be accepted. But I
>> >> better come up with damn good answers to get such support from other
>> >> people. Given that this entire process will be done in the open, it
>> >> will be very hard to get away with bullshit ideas.
>> >> EHL
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: email@example.com
>> >> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
>> >> ] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob
>> >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:52 PM
>> >> To: email@example.com
>> >> Subject: Re: Open Web Foundation characterization
>> >> Chris-
>> >> Are these criteria for content, or merely for openness?
>> >> Is this group trying to be some sort of judge of technical merit, or
>> >> of market value?
>> >> -Gabe
>> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>> We'll be looking at a lot of the Apache processes for incubation.
>> >>> Anyone of
>> >>> course can start an independent specification process; the ones
>> >>> that go
>> >>> through the OWF will probably need to meet some set of criteria,
>> >>> still TBD.
>> >>> Chris
>> >>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Elias Bizannes
>> >>> <elias.bizan...@gmail.com
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> I like the approach, but am wondering about where the line is? If
>> >>>> it's
>> >>>> a specification, does that mean anyone that knocks on the door can
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> supported? Will there be a difference between, say, a specification
>> >>>> for authentication as opposed to a CMS plugin?
>> >>>> +1 on lightweight. Sounds simple, but there is a lot of value in
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> alone...but hard to achieve as well.
>> >>> --
>> >>> Chris Messina
>> >>> Citizen-Participant &
>> >>> Open Source Advocate-at-Large
>> >>> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
>> >>> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
>> >>> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
>> >> --
>> >> Gabe Wachob / gwac...@wachob.com \ http://blog.wachob.com
>> >> This ideas in this email: [ ] I freely license [X] Ask first [ ] May
>> >> be subject to patents
>> Gabe Wachob / gwac...@wachob.com \ http://blog.wachob.com
>> This ideas in this email: [ ] I freely license [X] Ask first [ ] May
>> be subject to patents