What do you want from the OWF board?
Eran Hammer-Lahav
to make progress. As we plan for the agenda, what do you want from the
board? What topics do you want discussed?
EHL
David Recordon
- 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
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
John Panzer
- Plan for progress on the CLA
- Discussion of tools needed for specification development and current gaps
Steve Repetti
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.
Regards,
Steve Repetti
www.radwebtech.com
Elias Bizannes
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.
Elias Bizannes
http://eliasbizannes.com
DeWitt Clinton
Nathan DiNiro
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.
Simon Grant
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.
Best wishes
Simon
--
Simon Grant
+44 7710031657
http://www.simongrant.org/home.html
Eran Hammer-Lahav
What do *you* think is the right scope? What do *you* want to see the
foundation provide (and ways to resource it)?
EHL
On Jan 19, 10:02 pm, John Panzer <jpan...@acm.org> wrote:
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsu...@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...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Eran Hammer-Lahav
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?
What do you think it means?
EHL
Eran Hammer-Lahav
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).
EHL
> Elias Bizanneshttp://eliasbizannes.com
>
> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Eran Hammer-Lahav
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.
EHL
> I'm also curious if there is interest in scheduling OWF meetings &
> get-together's around OSCon and/or OS Bridge?
>
> -Nate
>
> EM: unclen...@gmail.com
> TW: @unclenate
> PH: 503-449-9943
>
> 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.
>
> >> Elias Bizannes
> >>http://eliasbizannes.com
>
> >> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>> open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsu...@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...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsu...@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...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Elias Bizannes
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 clarificationWhat do *you* think it should be? What do *you* need?
> 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.
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.
Agreed. Deadline for the CLA is easy, as long as we maintain the same
> 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.
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.
Brady Brim-DeForest
--
Brady Brim-DeForest
www.brimdeforest.com (the blog)
www.tubefilter.tv (the company)
Follow me: twitter.com/bradybd
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
--
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.
David Recordon
Brady Brim-DeForest
Brady Brim-DeForest
www.brimdeforest.com (the blog)
www.tubefilter.tv (the company)
Follow me: twitter.com/bradybd
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
Tantek Celik
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
Eran Hammer-Lahav
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
Raju Bitter
Elias Bizannes
Elias Bizannes
http://eliasbizannes.com