> -Dan
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Gabe Wachob <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
>> 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: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
>> > [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com
>> > ] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:52 PM
>> > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.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
|
