OWF Announcement Update

[David Rudin]

Here's where I think things currently stand for the announcement.

1.  Announcement Date:  Tuesday 11/17/2009.  11am Pacific.

2.  OWF Blog Post:
     - DeWitt has provided a first draft.  I've also provided a few suggested edits.  Other comments welcome.

     - Recordon to post (please confirm).

3.  Posted Agreement and Deed.  Recordon (and anyone else?) to beautify it.

4.  Specs for Announcement.  I have an unofficial list now, but please confirm by EOD Monday all confirmed commitments for announcement.  Feel free to do this to the board members off list if you'd like.

5.  Press Outreach.  Chris & Angus - Any updates?

6.  Legal Committee Recharter.  Larry and David to post at same time as OWF announcement.

Anything else?

Thanks,

David 

[Brett McDowell]

Given the thread today about ASF push-back, and the visibility of what was apparently understood by some of you that v0.9 was anticipated to change (quickly?) and become v1.0, I suggest someone try to answer the following question up on the wiki at

http://wiki.openwebfoundation.org/Launch_Plan_Materials

Question: Why should I adopt version 0.9 versus wait for version 1.0 to come out?

and/or

Question: When is version 1.0 expected to be finalized?

I actually need the answer to that question for my community. I had been anticipating advocating for our adoption of OWFa but given today's discussion about 0.9 vs. 1.0 and ASF push-back, I'm not so sure now is the right time.

Thoughts?


Brett McDowell | http://info.brettmcdowell.com | http://KantaraInitiative.org

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

First, there is no "ASF push-back" that I am aware of. We received feedback from a couple of ASF members which we took very seriously, debated, and made changes to the agreement based upon. We did not have enough consensus at the time for more changes, but left the door wide open to continue the discussion.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-we...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> bo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brett McDowell
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 12:18 PM
> To: open-we...@googlegroups.com
> Cc: Angus Logan; robd...@microsoft.com
> Subject: [Open Web Board] Re: OWF Announcement Update
>
>
> Given the thread today about ASF push-back, and the visibility of what
> was apparently understood by some of you that v0.9 was anticipated to
> change (quickly?) and become v1.0, I suggest someone try to answer the
> following question up on the wiki at
>
> http://wiki.openwebfoundation.org/Launch_Plan_Materials
>
> Question: Why should I adopt version 0.9 versus wait for version 1.0
> to come out?
>
> and/or
>
> Question: When is version 1.0 expected to be finalized?

There is no current plan to release a version 1.0. The next focus of the committee is to work on a CLA and other parts of the legal framework. If during that discussion the committee decides to make changes to the agreement, they are free to bring it up to the board for consideration.

I originally proposed we version this agreement 0.9 to send a clear signal that while we need an agreement today for a wide range of specifications, our work is not done and we welcome and invite more people to actively participate. The 0.9 designation is not a sign of incompletion but of an open conversation. It is a fully featured and complete agreement, just not the last word from the OWF.

Those in need of a legal agreement for specifications should simply review the document and decide for themselves if it accommodates all their needs. There is no difference between using this agreement and any of the specifications it protects. In other words, if you asked me about adopting OAuth 1.0 or waiting for 2.0, I would have given you the same answer.

As for those considering implementing OWF licensed specifications, their legal review must go beyond just the OWF agreement, and consider the wide range of enabling technologies and other legal issues at hand, including whether non-parties have blocking IP (which is the much greater concern).

EHL

[Chris Messina]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <er...@hueniverse.com> wrote:

> Question: When is version 1.0 expected to be finalized?

There is no current plan to release a version 1.0. The next focus of the committee is to work on a CLA and other parts of the legal framework. If during that discussion the committee decides to make changes to the agreement, they are free to bring it up to the board for consideration.

I originally proposed we version this agreement 0.9 to send a clear signal that while we need an agreement today for a wide range of specifications, our work is not done and we welcome and invite more people to actively participate. The 0.9 designation is not a sign of incompletion but of an open conversation. It is a fully featured and complete agreement, just not the last word from the OWF.

We're also not talking about software.

The "0.9" release of a legal document won't necessarily cause incompatibilities if we end up revving it to 1.0 — it'll just mean that a potentially different legal framing is in effect, or that language has been changed to clarify the application of various legal concepts.

The issue about "0.9" is therefore something of a red herring — and should be treated as a milestone — and one that represents the current best thinking on the subject.

While there have been newer versions of Creative Commons licenses released, these revisions were largely driven by an expanded scope of applicability (i.e. international applications). People were able to then relicense their work as they so desired without "breaking" anything.

Communities and web technology-producing groups should be able to confidently apply the OWF agreement as it stands; if we do rev it later, they should be able to pick which version is most apt for their situation — rather than on the basis of "newness".

Chris

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

Last-call, wearing my president hat:

 

Are there any objections to moving forward with this plan for tomorrow?

 

EHL

[Brady Brim-DeForest]

None from me.

> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "open-web-board" group.
> To post to this group, send email to open-we...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> open-web-boar...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-board?hl=en
> For more information: http://openwebfoundation.org/
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

Thanks David, DeWitt, Recordon, Chris, and everyone else who helped with this announcement. Things look pretty good for tomorrow.

 

I will be away from my desk all day, so please update this list when the blog post is published and with links to any news coverage, as well as blog reactions. If there are any negative comments, please share them here as well.

 

Thanks,

 

EHL

 

From: open-we...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-we...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Rudin
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:30 PM
To: open-we...@googlegroups.com; Angus Logan; robd...@microsoft.com
Subject: [Open Web Board] OWF Announcement Update

 

Here's where I think things currently stand for the announcement.

[DeWitt Clinton]

Quick update:

I converted the final approved draft to plain text and saved it here:

  http://code.google.com/p/openwebfoundation/source/browse/legal/agreement/index.txt

Next, I converted it to HTML using py26-markdown, and saved the output here:

  http://code.google.com/p/openwebfoundation/source/browse/legal/agreement/index.html

Last, I uploaded the HTML into a new page on the website at:

  http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/agreement/

Please take a moment to review all three documents.

Also, I'd like to remove the sidebar on that page, but I can't figure out how to do it.  Chris, David -- either of you know how to update the templates?

Next, I'll do the same treatment for the Deed (where's the latest copy?), and post it at http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/deed/.

Also, I'll make the final updates to the blog post.  

I can queue that up unless anyone else wants to.

-DeWitt

--

[DeWitt Clinton]

Update two:

In order to get everything important into version control, I converted the deed to text and checked it in at:

  http://code.google.com/p/openwebfoundation/source/browse/legal/deed/index.txt

HTML version checked in at:

 

  http://code.google.com/p/openwebfoundation/source/browse/legal/deed/index.html

And republished at:

  http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/

-DeWitt

[DeWitt Clinton]

Update three:

I updated the How To guide with the final links.

Also updated the blog post with the final links -- almost ready to go.  I can take care of the posting of that tomorrow (at 11:00?).

-DeWitt

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

Thanks DeWitt!

 

Please go ahead and post it around 11am PT.

 

EHL

[DeWitt Clinton]

Blog post all queued.  I'll hit the button at 11:00 unless I hear otherwise.

Could people please do a final review of these pages:

  http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/

  http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/agreement/

To avoid conflicting modifications, please don't make changes directly -- please ping me and I'll make them.

-DeWitt

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

The “Open Web Foundation Notice and Disclaimer” should not be part of the document itself. Either move it to a linking page or break the page to make it clear (maybe another font, strong line between, etc.).

 

EHL

 

From: DeWitt Clinton [mailto:dew...@google.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:40 AM
To: open-we...@googlegroups.com

[DeWitt Clinton]

Done:

  http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/agreement/

  http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/notice/

Changes checked into version control.

-DeWitt

[David Recordon]

Awesome, thanks DeWitt.

The post URL should be http://openwebfoundation.org/2009/11/introducing-the-open-web-foundation-agreement.html.

[Brett McDowell]

Thanks to Eran and Chris for providing informed, useful answers to my questions.  I'm in much better shape to advocate for the adoption of OWFa.

Good luck with today's announcement.  When/if we adopt OWFa I'll let this group know.  It might help to have a steady drumbeat of announcements over the next few months to grow momentum for OWFa.  I hope to contribute something to that momentum... soon.

Cheers,

Brett McDowell  |  http://info.brettmcdowell.com  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org

[David Rudin]

Thanks everyone for all your work!  Great to see everyone coming together to get this done.

DeWitt - can we add the signing instructions box back into the top of the agreement?  Also, I'll send you over a copy of the agreements in ODF, DOC, and DOCx if you'd like to post them along with the agreement.  An Adobe form would be nice as well, but I don't have the right software to make one.

David

--

[DeWitt Clinton]

Posted:

  http://openwebfoundation.org/2009/11/introducing-the-open-web-foundation-agreement.html

Congrats, all!

-DeWitt

[David Rudin]

Thanks DeWitt.  I just posted about the agreement at www.standardslaw.com.

David

[Gabe Wachob]

Thanks!

A great milestone! Now the work begins ;) (with a nod to Larry)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote:

Gabe Wachob / gwa...@wachob.com \ http://beatslacker.com

[Brady Brim-DeForest]

Congratulations and great work!

--
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

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote:

[David Recordon]

Our post is live! http://developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog=1&story=335