Nominations for Legal Affairs Committee

[David Recordon]

This morning we held the first OWF board call which means that from an organization perspective we're able to really start moving forward.  We all agreed that we need to form a committee to focus on IPR and thus as Eran posted about a few days ago we would like to form a Legal Affairs Comittee.  This is inline with what the ASF created in 2007.

While some people have expressed interest in contributing as members of this comittee, we'd like to have a until EOD Friday for anyone to nominate themselves.  When doing so, please give a few sentances as to why you think you'll be a good contributor as an initial member of the committee and your affiliation.

Thanks,
--David

[Ben Laurie]

Me. I've broken my wrist, so i'm hoping its obvious why.

>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
> >
>

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

First it was # email posts, and now it's apparently self-inflicted
bodily injury?

/me ponders while standing on train station platform thinking about
how he can out-do Ben...

geir

[Ben Laurie]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> First it was # email posts, and now it's apparently self-inflicted
> bodily injury?
>
> /me ponders while standing on train station platform thinking about
> how he can out-do Ben...

Jump? :-)

[Gabe Wachob]

I'd like to be the first to nominate myself for the IPR committee.

I have a JD from UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law (but have never
practiced law), but I am really a developer and technologist. I have
been very active in IPR policy setting activities around (most
recently) OpenID, OAuth, and related technologies. I've been involved
in technical standards-making including OpenID, OAuth (to a lesser
extent), XRI/XRDS-Simple (as co-chair of the OASIS TC), and a variety
of other specs. As a TC chair, I've advocated the need for more open
source friendly IPR policies within OASIS, with some positive effect.

I believe my recent contributions in the OWF IPR and formation
discussions demonstrate my passion around this topic and I'd deeply
appreciate being selected for this committee.

Thanks!

-Gabe

[chris....@gmail.com]

I don't know what the process is, but I'll second your nomination!

I think your help early on with OAuth was instrumental.

Chris

--
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

[Brady Brim-DeForest]

Chris,

According to Robert's Rules, each nominee should be seconded - you did the right thing!

-Brady

--
Brady Brim-DeForest
www.brimdeforest.com

[David Recordon]

"Nomination" might have been the wrong word, volunteer to do work might be a bit closer. :)

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

I would like to join this committee as it is the primary reason why I helped found the OWF. For those who don’t know me, I work for Yahoo! as their Open Web Evangelist, helping Yahoo! open up and find new ways to interact with the community. I’m the OAuth spec editor, worked on the OAuth IPR policy, helped create the OpenSocial foundation and IPR policy, and the author of the OAuth Discovery and XRDS-Simple specs. Before all this web stuff, I worked 10 years managing tech for investment banks, and before that consulted for non-profits and governmental agency in Israel.

 

EHL

http://hueniverse.com

[David]

I’d like to participate in the committee. As part of Microsoft’s
Interoperability Group, I spend a great deal of time dealing with the
IP issues that OWF is looking to address. I regularly work with a
wide range of standards and interop related organizations, ranging
from informal groups to international organizations. I’m also
involved in Microsoft’s efforts around making a wide variety of
specifications freely available (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/
default.mspx). I’m personally interested in OWF since it’s trying to
solve the real world problems that are getting in the way of technical
progress.

David

[Chris Messina]

I second Eran's motion. ;)

--

[Geir Magnusson]

do we really have to second?

If so, I second everyone who has volunteered so far.

geir

[Simon Phipps]

I'd be happy to help with this. In addition to working in various
standards settings since the 80s, I've been helping guide Sun's open
source strategy for a number of years, so I have loads of experience
to complement my total lack of qualifications.

S.

[Geir Magnusson]

I second Simon

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

I volunteered before this thread, but given the formal approach taken
since, I'm going to do it again. I'd like to ask for leniency from
the board in submitting my motion to volunteer myself after the stated
deadline of EOD friday: Oh board, I beseech thee to grant upon myself
in thy mercy forgiveness for my tardiness and sloth. Your munificence
knows no bounds. :)

I volunteer.

I have some relevant experience...

Working in the Apache Software Foundation as the rep to the Exec
Committee of the Java Community Process (which gave me a solid
grounding in one kind of international, commercially oriented
"standards"-body work, esp from the point of view of transparency, IP
management, and how to integrate individuals and organizations like
NPs and OSS projects into the ecosystem. In addition, I helped
organize and manage both the ASFs engagement in various Java expert
groups and also how the ASF licensed and managed non-open spec
compliance test suites for the various ASF project communities that
implement Java specifications.

Also, as a founding member of the Apache Geronimo (Java EE) and Apache
Harmony (Java SE) projects, I helped navigate various legal issues
surrounding spec compliance, spec implementation, code contribution
provenance and licensing concerns, etc, especially in Apache Harmony,
a project that to this day has a multi-billion-dollar software company
openly using it's patent portfolio to try to cut off it's air supply.

Finally, I've been engaged in various spec engagement and licensing
activities at the commercial entities I worked for over the last 4
years or so...

geir

[Simon Phipps]

Assuming seconding is needed, and assuming I am allowed to second
someone who seconded me, I'd enthusiastically second and support
Geir's nomination.

[David Recordon]

So, from this thread and the previous thread I believe the list of everyone who volunteered is:

* Ben Laurie <be...@google.com>
* David Rudin <davi...@microsoft.com>
* DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com>
* Eran Hammer-Lahav <er...@hueniverse.com>
* Gabe Wachob <gwa...@wachob.com>
* Geir Magnusson <ge...@pobox.com>
* Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
* Pelle Braendgaard <pel...@gmail.com>
* Simon Phipps <web...@gmail.com>
* Stephan Wenger <stephan...@nokia.com>

Am I missing anyone?  If not, I'll turn this into a board resolution and call for a vote so that we can get this underway.

--David

[Ben Laurie]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 6:04 PM, David Recordon <reco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, from this thread and the previous thread I believe the list of everyone
> who volunteered is:
>
> * Ben Laurie <be...@google.com>
> * David Rudin <davi...@microsoft.com>
> * DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com>
> * Eran Hammer-Lahav <er...@hueniverse.com>
> * Gabe Wachob <gwa...@wachob.com>
> * Geir Magnusson <ge...@pobox.com>
> * Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> * Pelle Braendgaard <pel...@gmail.com>
> * Simon Phipps <web...@gmail.com>
> * Stephan Wenger <stephan...@nokia.com>
>
> Am I missing anyone? If not, I'll turn this into a board resolution and
> call for a vote so that we can get this underway.

I know that Ben Lee from Google also wants to participate.

[David Recordon]

Given that Ben hasn't participated in the group at all, I'd imagine that him being an initial member of the committee wouldn't make sense though I do hope that he participates in the committee as it gets started.  It shouldn't require being a member of a committee to participate and I'd imagine that you and DeWitt would be working with him from a Google perspective as well.  Is that incorrect?

--David

[Ben Laurie]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 6:31 PM, David Recordon <reco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given that Ben hasn't participated in the group at all, I'd imagine that him
> being an initial member of the committee wouldn't make sense though I do
> hope that he participates in the committee as it gets started. It shouldn't
> require being a member of a committee to participate and I'd imagine that
> you and DeWitt would be working with him from a Google perspective as well.
> Is that incorrect?

So long as he can join the mailing list and comment ditrectly, that's
fine by me - would prefer to avoid Chinese Whispers.

[Geir Magnusson]

what about jim jagielski? he indicated interest, although not on the
correct thread...

[David Recordon]

Thanks, I must have missed him then.

---
Sent from my iPhone classic.

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

and can we shanghai Sam Ruby?

/me runs

geir

[David Recordon]

I believe Sam said in another thread that he wasn't interested in being a member of the committee.

--David

[Sam Ruby]

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 1:23 AM, David Recordon <reco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe Sam said in another thread that he wasn't interested in being a
> member of the committee.

You didn't notice that Geir said "/me runs". :-)

My non-interest at the time was based on the sentiment at the time
that the committee would have a fixed number of seats. I'm interested
in participating. I care not whether I get an official vote. At the
moment, I'd prefer not to have access to input that I would be
expected to hold in confidence.

While I have the utmost respect for the W3C situation that Larry
described previously where he helped them move from default closed to
a bit more open, this group has the opportunity to start out with a
presumption of default open. It absolutely needs to provide a
mechanism for confidential input, but the group can decide to use that
only when necessary.

So, if there are a few who can vote and and who have access to
confidential input, I don't need to be part of that. If every effort
is made to enable and encourage wide participation, then I'll be here.

[Brady Brim-DeForest]

I would love to participate in the committee, more for my own sake (listening and learning), but don't care about having a vote.

For those of us who would like to participate in a limited fashion, will the opportunity be made available to observe/sit-in on discourse without being an official member?

-Brady

--
Brady Brim-DeForest
www.brimdeforest.com

[Ben Lee]

I would be happy to participate in whatever form will be helpful to
the group. I'm not officially participating in my Google capacity at
this point, but I can certainly offer my $.02 wherever appropriate.
Thanks -- Ben

On Sep 13, 10:31 am, "David Recordon" <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given that Ben hasn't participated in the group at all, I'd imagine that him
> being an initial member of the committee wouldn't make sense though I do
> hope that he participates in the committee as it gets started.  It shouldn't
> require being a member of a committee to participate and I'd imagine that
> you and DeWitt would be working with him from a Google perspective as well.
> Is that incorrect?
>
> --David
>

> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Ben Laurie <b...@google.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 6:04 PM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
> > > So, from this thread and the previous thread I believe the list of
> > everyone
> > > who volunteered is:
>

> > > * Ben Laurie <b...@google.com>
> > > * David Rudin <david...@microsoft.com>
> > > * DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com>
> > > * Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>
> > > * Gabe Wachob <gwac...@wachob.com>
> > > * Geir Magnusson <g...@pobox.com>

> > > * Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> > > * Pelle Braendgaard <pel...@gmail.com>

> > > * Simon Phipps <webm...@gmail.com>
> > > * Stephan Wenger <stephan.wen...@nokia.com>

>
> > > Am I missing anyone?  If not, I'll turn this into a board resolution and
> > > call for a vote so that we can get this underway.
>
> > I know that Ben Lee from Google also wants to participate.
>
> > > --David
>

> > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:22 PM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com>

[Gabe Wachob]

Ben-
Sounds great. One thing I'm interested in is getting actual review
from companies like Google (though Google tends to have fairly easy
legal requirements, in my experience) to review, or even make
suggestions on, IPR policies/processes (since these companies are
going to have to cooperate and subject themselves to the IPR policies
in many cases). Could you see a way how you could, at some point,
*officially* participate as a Google legal rep? What would that take?

-Gabe

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

[Jim Jagielski]

As mentioned, I would love to join. Looking at the list, it doesn't seem too ASF heavy, so if people think I'd be useful, count me in :)

[Brett McDowell]

Will these discussions be open to non-committee members? If not, then
I would ask to be a committee member. I am pretty new to OWF so I
don't assert that I "deserve" to be on the committee, but I've worked
with many of you in the past and you can decide if I'd add value or
not. Please note: if full access to the discussions does not require
a committee seat then I withdraw my request.

Some Context:
I ask because I'm working on the formation of IDTBD (www.idtbd.org)
and given what I expect OWF to create, I believe "IDTBD Projects"
might want to take advantage of the OWF IPR Agreement. Therefore I'd
like to understand it as best I can and following the discussions
would be helpful in that regard. I might also be in a position to get
a greater breadth of "actual review from companies like
Google" (Google is clearly well represented already but there are many
other companies "like Google" that are not active in OWF but are/will
be in IDTBD).

Either way, best of luck with this ambitious project. I'll contribute
to your success in whatever way I can, with what resources I have
available. I think it is an important issue that OWF is poised to
tackle. I would hope OWF and IDTBD could collaborate effectively,
when/if appropriate to meet our common goals.

To that point, I've noticed some skepticism of IDTBD on the OWF list
since David distributed his version of notes from last Monday's
meeting. I think skepticism is always at least partly appropriate for
any new, unproven initiative but I would just encourage OWF founders
to have an open mind and to be sensitive to the overlap in our
mission, vision and structure. We have more in common than not,
notably that shared "new and unproven" attribute.

Thank you for your consideration...

-- Brett McDowell, Executive Director, Liberty Alliance

[Ben Lee]

Gabe: definitely, I can see lots of ways in which Google could end up
participating in a more formal manner, and I'm certain DeWitt and Ben
will help to make that happen. As the IPR policy gets more underway,
I can certainly give you my read on how the provisions would be
received both inside and outside of Google. -- Ben

> Gabe Wachob / gwac...@wachob.com \http://blog.wachob.com

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

I think (and hope) and we can conduct the vast majority of our committee work in the open. I think for the sake of productivity, policy drafts and some f2f or conference calls should remain confidential, but only after attempting to make progress in public. We plan to start this in public and see how much progress can be made. At the same time, I am sure there will be off-line off-the-record conversations simply because that is human nature...

EHL

[David Recordon]

Yep, the discussions will certainly be open to non-committee members.  Just as said before, the committee members would be the ones with binding votes and in charge of all of this cat herding. :)

[David Recordon]

Thanks for all the feedback and nominations!  I'm going to ask the board to create the committee and then get a mailing list setup for all of you.