I've completed an update, cleanup, reformatting of our one page document

[ptrev...@gmail.com]

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AbegxIt-Xx18ZGZtcnByN3BfMTVkN3BmaGtoag&hl=

Now it starts with a backgrounder.
Then strawman #1.
Then an appendix.

[Matthew Gardiner]

Paul et al...

 

I don't understand exactly what is meant by this:

 

Kantara has a BoT which in some sense is an alternative to the "earmarking" approach. Don't know what the receptivity.

 

Kantara has membership fees which are allocated to cover organization expenses....Kantara can and has received donations by parties that are in effect earmarked to support specific projects

 

For the below you mean "lose" not "loose"

 

 

ICF & OIDF Community members may be concerned that they will loose their voice since the BoT is only for corporate sponsors.

 

The issue brought up is addressed in Kantara through the dual houses (LC and BoT) approach....Where WG/DG chairs are members of the LC...and the LC elects 2 of its members to be on the BoT.  So a highly motivated WGer...can not only sit on the technical leadership through the LC....but also sit on the BoT through the LC's seats.  Thus the BoT is not only for corporate sponsors.

 

All the best.

Matthew

[Paul Trevithick]

On Jun 11, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Matthew Gardiner wrote:

Paul et al...

 

I don't understand exactly what is meant by this:

 

Kantara has a BoT which in some sense is an alternative to the "earmarking" approach. Don't know what the receptivity.

 

Kantara has membership fees which are allocated to cover organization expenses....Kantara can and has received donations by parties that are in effect earmarked to support specific projects

My mistake. I deleted the earmarking idea, so now it is back faithful to what we all had discussed as strawman #1.

 

For the below you mean "lose" not "loose"

Yes, fixed, thank you. 

BTW, we all have "edit" access to this shared document.

[Nat Sakimura]

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Matthew Gardiner
<jmatthew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul et al...
>
> I don't understand exactly what is meant by this:
>
> Kantara has a BoT which in some sense is an alternative to the "earmarking"
> approach. Don't know what the receptivity.
>
> Kantara has membership fees which are allocated to cover organization
> expenses....Kantara can and has received donations by parties that are in
> effect earmarked to support specific projects
>
> For the below you mean "lose" not "loose"
>
>
> ICF & OIDF Community members may be concerned that they will loose their
> voice since the BoT is only for corporate sponsors.
>
> The issue brought up is addressed in Kantara through the dual houses (LC and
> BoT) approach....Where WG/DG chairs are members of the LC...and the LC
> elects 2 of its members to be on the BoT.  So a highly motivated WGer...can
> not only sit on the technical leadership through the LC....but also sit on
> the BoT through the LC's seats.  Thus the BoT is not only for corporate
> sponsors.

Let me add more voices to Matthew's point.
It is quite ironic that OIDF seems to be trying to remove community
board members.
I actually foreseen it, and this was one of the reason for me to
propose bicameral model at Kantara,
to ensure that community will be protected.

>
> All the best.
> Matthew
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:33 PM, ptrev...@gmail.com
> <ptrev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AbegxIt-Xx18ZGZtcnByN3BfMTVkN3BmaGtoag&hl=
>>
>> Now it starts with a backgrounder.
>> Then strawman #1.
>> Then an appendix.
>>
>
>

--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
http://twitter.com/_nat_en

[Anthony Nadalin]

There are board members and there are board members that have voting rights. I think that OIDF will evolve into a new member structure. I don't agree the Kantara model as this has more potential problems and these are greater problems than how OIDF is structured (along with some other issues).

I have read through the document and don't agree that there should be one massive technology entity (at least how I understand it); this is one thing that really bothers me about Kantara. Several of us have had discussions around what we would like to see as an umbrella organization that would continue the work that OIDF and ICF are doing and let those folks concentrate on the technology and have the umbrella org focus on the overall Open Identity space.