Open Web Foundation characterization

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Gabe Wachob

unread,
Jul 24, 2008, 11:08:52 PM7/24/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
An early way I'm describing the Open Web Foundation is (as Scott says)
not a Standards Body, but a "IPR DMZ" - (an intellectual property
rights demilitarized zone).

Most folks who are hearing about this haven't directly participated in
a community standards effort, or a more formal standards body. They
think the W3C/IETF/OASIS "covers it".

But I think the sense of folks here is that there needs to be
something lighter weight that's only focused on the minimum needed for
a spec to become widely adoptable. For me, thats IPR hygiene -- almost
everything else can be done *easily* without an org (save, maybe the
organizational standup of a new org to hold/manage IPR). Having
slogged through this IPR policy stuff several times,I'm really happy
to see this effort to create a reusable framework for community
efforts. I only hope it remains lightweight and facilitates the widest
range of community efforts as possible.

-Gabe

Chris Messina

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 12:33:53 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
+1

Yes, we should be promoting the/an "open source model" for IP/IPR.

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

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 12:43:50 AM7/25/08
to Open Web Foundation Discussion
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

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 12:49:25 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
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 

Gabe Wachob

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 12:52:02 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
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

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

This ideas in this email: [ ] I freely license [X] Ask first [ ] May
be subject to patents

Chris Messina

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 2:08:54 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
No, I don't think that's the intention -- we need to think/talk more
about what will encourage good practices/"good IPR hygiene" in
projects. I don't think it'd make sense to become kingmakers in any
sense, but, for example, if I'm going to start a new project to create
some kind of specification (like oEmbed) what do I need to do to align
myself with the OWF? Maybe it means no more than getting everyone on
the initiative to sign an OWF-provided CLA (contributor's license
agreement assigning copyright to the foundation) or maybe there's more
to it.

I'm not going to speak on behalf of the group of course at this point
but would be interested in your thoughts on this notion of "criteria".

Chris

Sent from an iPhone Classic.

Eran Hammer-Lahav

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 2:10:53 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
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

Eran Hammer-Lahav

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 2:18:06 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
Another way I've been talking about this, especially with lawyers (pretty much full time for the past 2 months), is what I call the 'OAuth test'. Basically, whenever someone suggests a process, legal or otherwise, I apply it to the 4 months specification writing period of OAuth and see what happens. Let me tell you - it usually blows into tiny pieces. It is the easiest way to show why we need the OWF. I want OAuth-like successes without the OAuth-like 7 months of post-IPR work. If we do that, we've accomplished everything we set to do.

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 2:27:55 AM7/25/08
to Open Web Foundation Discussion
On Jul 25, 4:10 pm, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> I am going to spend tomorrow writing down about a lot of the discussions and ideas that are driving this effort.

Thanks Eran, I would appreciate seeing that.

Gabe Wachob

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 2:47:25 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
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

Eran Hammer-Lahav

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:01:49 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
I completely agree.

I think the key here is more about setting minimum requirements that are *not* about content, such as certain number of participants, the ability to find an experienced spec editor to sponsor/mentor the effort, getting some level of actual adoption before graduation. Basically - find ways to let the market guide us in an open way.

Gabe Wachob

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:06:12 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
This group has to be thin (just IPR, and minimum critical mass for new
work) and wide (anyone can participate, nobody blackballs or blesses
specs, etc).

Most stds bodies are tall and skinny..

-Gabe

DeWitt Clinton

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:13:30 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
Good thing we're not a standards body!

Many people here are already familiar with the Apache Incubator process, but for newcomers, here are some good links to read on one model that works very well, and can probably be adapted to specifications:

  http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html

And the proposal guidelines:

  http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html

Which all fits within the general Apache framework, which is described extremely well here:

  http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html

Worth reading again as we get started.  I'd also love to hear from the Apache members on this list as to what works in practice, and what, if anything, they wish they could change about the Incubator.

Cheers,

-DeWitt

Luca Mearelli

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:25:06 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
2008/7/25 Eran Hammer-Lahav <er...@hueniverse.com>:

> 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.

IMHO even just defining clear and simple processes and documents
(IPR-related mainly) would be a huge contribution to the diffusion of
open standards.

It will be a great value to the big corporations as they'll know that
a spec has been developed using a commonly agreed (legal) framework,
BUT it will be of greater value to the small players and groups that
may be able to come up with interesting specs but may not (and usually
don't) have the experience and ability to go beyond the technical
spec.

In the end, with OWF, we may come out with something akin to an
IPR-commons (or Open-IPR, doing for specs IPR what CC did for the
licensing of creative work).

Also important is that these efforts are grounded on some real prior
work that has succeeded ans has been validated "by the market", as the
process and IPR work around OAuth.

Luca Mearelli

Eran Hammer-Lahav

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:30:37 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com

A great quote from Stephen Walli at OSCON this week (which I hope I remember right):

 

 Standards are how companies declare war against the market leader.

 

(http://en.oreilly.com/oscon2008/public/schedule/detail/2313)

 

EHL

James Tauber

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:33:38 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
One example of a "specification-developing body" that adopts the
approach of allowing multiple competing specifications to be developed
within is OASIS (http://www.oasis-open.org/)

In fact, if you describe OWF as "Apache for specs", you could describe
OASIS as an "Apache for Enterprisey Specs" ;)

Whether OWF is OASIS-Lite or something else, there are probably a lot
of interesting things to borrow from at:

http://www.oasis-open.org/who/policies_procedures.php

James
--
James Tauber http://jtauber.com/
journeyman of some http://jtauber.com/blog/


Dan Peterson

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:33:44 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
I absolutely agree that OWF shouldn't be a gate keeper for "competing" specs. Two (or really "n"), in the same domain, should be able to co-exist peacefully.

As for going beyond legal/IPR, I feel like we -- collectively -- could come up with some "default" best practices around spec governance and related processes. While I'd recommend they not formally be "required," I'd imagine most sub-projects would then use them as a baseline when setting up their own processes. It'd avoid re-inventing the wheel, and lower the per-project learning curve on etiquette and culture.

-Dan

Gabe Wachob

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:36:09 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
James-
I have been an OASIS TC chair for almost 6 years. I totally agree
that hte model should be OASIS lite. In fact, I have been arguing to
those who would listen that OASIS should just drop its membership fees
for individuals... and then it would be pretty good (the process needs
a little fat-trimming in OASIS admittedly).

I'm worried about the whole filtering process inside ASF - totally
appropriate for that environment, but it feels like friction we don't
need for specs...

-Gabe

--

David Recordon

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:39:33 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
Great discussion so far and like Eran I intend to write up more of my thoughts around the incubation process.  Like DeWitt shared with Apache, I think that we should have a lightweight proposal process and then a clear set of requirements for "graduation".

In my head the proposal tries to tease out if they've thought about how what they want to do relates to other specifications, how they intend to develop a diverse community of contributors, some sort of argument around why the work is useful, and two or three mentors who are members of the OWF who are committed to help the community through the process.

Graduation then focuses on things like having a diverse community of contributors, at least 2 publically availiable on the internet interoperable implementations, good open source reference implementations in at least 2? different languages, a spec which is readable and well edited, a community which feels it is ready to be done, and non-assertion statements issued by all of the contributors.

--David

Gabe Wachob

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:40:31 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
DeWitt-
Well, if you say this is like the apache project - then this "org"
is producing something? Not standards? Specifications? So its a
specifications organization, not a standards body? Rhetorical
questions.

Point is, the more we excercise criteria like the following ones
[1] from ASF, the more it looks feels a standards body:

Alignment / Synergy
* Use of other ASF subprojects
* Develop synergistic relationship with other ASF subprojects

If it were up to me, any group that met a minimum bar could come
into the org and comply with the IPR rules (and maybe extra rules
about openness, including diversity of participation, transparency,
etc) and produce a spec. And the meaning of OWF's association would be
that the IPR hygiene is clean and the spec was made in a minimally
transparent way.

The Apache meritocracy is about producing good quality code, where
good is defined by "being done by people with good reputation". I just
get really nervous when a group, no matter how experienced and well
respected the leaders/comitters are, decides a spec gets a thumbs up
or thumbs down before a spec even gets to market. It dilutes the
purpose of this org, I believe. Call me a free marketer ;)

So I hear you about lightweight and focus on IPR, but I'm trying
to understand the purpose of the Apache process for promoting work
from "candidate" to podling to project and why that's needed here.
Maybe I'm just being too literal here - but why do we need anything
other than "in/out" (and maybe "dead to inactivity or failure to
comply with IPR and/or process")? Once you come and show that your
contributors are good to go with the OWF IPR rules (and that there's a
legitimate community effort -- but thats a low bar I think), what else
should you need?

-Gabe

[1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator

Gabe Wachob

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:42:53 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
What are we afraid of?

Too many specs?

Diluting the OWF brand?

The OWF not being "relevant enough"?

Can we do half as much and be twice as successful?

-Gabe

David Recordon

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:43:01 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Gabe Wachob <gwa...@wachob.com> wrote:
> I'm worried about the whole filtering process inside ASF - totally
> appropriate for that environment, but it feels like friction we don't
> need for specs...

I actually believe that some level of filtering is needed.  Obviously lots of filtering and a complex process is not with our goals.  Making sure that a proposal supports the Open Web and has a chance of building a good community seem reasonable.  I really doubt that someone who takes the time to create a thought out proposal and recruit a few mentors would be turned down.  That said, OWF should not be a dumping ground for any specification.  As Chris Messina often talks about, we should also work to produce the IP docs in such a way that someone could apply them to work they're doing outside of OWF just as you can use the Apache license outside of the ASF.

--David

David Recordon

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:45:09 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
You're being a bit too literal, but we also haven't written out drafts of the incubation process so I don't blame you. :)

There are pieces of the ASF incubation process we should follow and others which we should learn from and decide that they're not applicable/right for this environment.

--David

David Recordon

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:47:29 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
My largest concern is time and resources of smart people.  The more that get involved then the more that we can do.  We shouldn't start with an open specification for a DSL modem authentication protocol as I doubt we have the domain expertise to do a good job.

--David

James Tauber

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:49:46 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com

On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:47 AM, David Recordon wrote:

> My largest concern is time and resources of smart people. The more
> that get involved then the more that we can do. We shouldn't start
> with an open specification for a DSL modem authentication protocol
> as I doubt we have the domain expertise to do a good job.


But following on from the OASIS-Lite meme, would we want to allow a
group of DSL modem auth protocol experts to create a working group
under OWF to do this if they came to us?

David Recordon

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:53:40 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
I imagine we'd want to allow it.  Hard to predict every situation, I think we should focus on what we've seen as criteria for successful open specifications and their communities.  From there we'll see what sort of projects get proposed.

--David

Eran Hammer-Lahav

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 4:09:28 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
The key here is not the subject matter or technical qualities of the spec. It is about being worth the foundation’s resources – really people: experienced editors, contributors, etc. If not, as David and Chris said, feel free to use the process and self manage.

EHL

Daniel Lewis

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 4:47:04 AM7/25/08
to Open Web Foundation Discussion
Hi all,

I like the sound of an IPRDMZ (aka "Hyperdems"), and lightweight is
good.

What I was hoping from OWF was a kind of communications bridge between
the all of the standards bodies, and also a communications bridge
between all of things like DataPortability, GNU, Apache, Open Source
Initiative etc.

Oh, and by the way, over here in the UK this group shares its name
with another OWF..... the "Order of Women Freemasons" ( http://www.owf.org.uk/
), I've heard that they are a lovely group of ladies.

Many thanks,

Daniel

Ben Laurie

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 5:41:13 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gabe Wachob <gwa...@wachob.com> wrote:
>
> An early way I'm describing the Open Web Foundation is (as Scott says)
> not a Standards Body, but a "IPR DMZ" - (an intellectual property
> rights demilitarized zone).
>
> Most folks who are hearing about this haven't directly participated in
> a community standards effort, or a more formal standards body. They
> think the W3C/IETF/OASIS "covers it".
>
> But I think the sense of folks here is that there needs to be
> something lighter weight that's only focused on the minimum needed for
> a spec to become widely adoptable. For me, thats IPR hygiene -- almost
> everything else can be done *easily* without an org (save, maybe the
> organizational standup of a new org to hold/manage IPR). Having
> slogged through this IPR policy stuff several times,I'm really happy
> to see this effort to create a reusable framework for community
> efforts. I only hope it remains lightweight and facilitates the widest
> range of community efforts as possible.

If we are going to learn from other organisations, then a second thing
that is needed is process. One of the main reasons the ASF works, IMO,
is because of two pretty simple rules:

1. Meritocracy

2. Three +1s, anyone can veto but must justify.

The IETF lets anyone participate equally. This is broken because WGs
can be stalled by any idiot with time on his hands. The ASF allows
anyone to speak, but only votes from committers are counted.

The W3C lets you buy a voice - and won't give you one unless you pay.
I hope its obvious why this is broken.

The three +1s with veto allows progress to be made rapidly without
having to pause for formal votes on a regular basis. The justification
requirement seems to pretty effectively prevent hidden agendas and
frivolous vetos (no-one is going to say "I vetoed because my plan is
better than yours").


>
> -Gabe
>
> >
>

Ben Laurie

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 5:48:13 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Dan Peterson <dpet...@google.com> wrote:
> I absolutely agree that OWF shouldn't be a gate keeper for "competing"
> specs. Two (or really "n"), in the same domain, should be able to co-exist
> peacefully.
>
> As for going beyond legal/IPR, I feel like we -- collectively -- could come
> up with some "default" best practices around spec governance and related
> processes. While I'd recommend they not formally be "required," I'd imagine
> most sub-projects would then use them as a baseline when setting up their
> own processes. It'd avoid re-inventing the wheel, and lower the per-project
> learning curve on etiquette and culture.

The lesson the ASF learned is that you actually do have to require
governance and process or you end up with some very dysfunctional
projects. This is largely why the incubator exists.

Ben Laurie

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 5:50:29 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Gabe Wachob <gwa...@wachob.com> wrote:
>
> James-
> I have been an OASIS TC chair for almost 6 years. I totally agree
> that hte model should be OASIS lite. In fact, I have been arguing to
> those who would listen that OASIS should just drop its membership fees
> for individuals... and then it would be pretty good (the process needs
> a little fat-trimming in OASIS admittedly).
>
> I'm worried about the whole filtering process inside ASF - totally
> appropriate for that environment, but it feels like friction we don't
> need for specs...

Could you expand on what you mean by "the whole filtering process inside ASF"?

Ben Laurie

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 5:54:22 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Gabe Wachob <gwa...@wachob.com> wrote:
>
> DeWitt-
> Well, if you say this is like the apache project - then this "org"
> is producing something? Not standards? Specifications? So its a
> specifications organization, not a standards body? Rhetorical
> questions.
>
> Point is, the more we excercise criteria like the following ones
> [1] from ASF, the more it looks feels a standards body:
>
> Alignment / Synergy
> * Use of other ASF subprojects
> * Develop synergistic relationship with other ASF subprojects

I would agree that these should be suggestions rather than requirements.

> If it were up to me, any group that met a minimum bar could come
> into the org and comply with the IPR rules (and maybe extra rules
> about openness, including diversity of participation, transparency,
> etc) and produce a spec. And the meaning of OWF's association would be
> that the IPR hygiene is clean and the spec was made in a minimally
> transparent way.

+1

> The Apache meritocracy is about producing good quality code, where
> good is defined by "being done by people with good reputation". I just
> get really nervous when a group, no matter how experienced and well
> respected the leaders/comitters are, decides a spec gets a thumbs up
> or thumbs down before a spec even gets to market. It dilutes the
> purpose of this org, I believe. Call me a free marketer ;)

The meritocracy decides who is trusted to screw up the code base, not
the popularity of the product.

> So I hear you about lightweight and focus on IPR, but I'm trying
> to understand the purpose of the Apache process for promoting work
> from "candidate" to podling to project and why that's needed here.
> Maybe I'm just being too literal here - but why do we need anything
> other than "in/out" (and maybe "dead to inactivity or failure to
> comply with IPR and/or process")? Once you come and show that your
> contributors are good to go with the OWF IPR rules (and that there's a
> legitimate community effort -- but thats a low bar I think), what else
> should you need?

Process that ensures that genuine participants are treated fairly.

Danny Weitzner

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 7:02:35 AM7/25/08
to Open Web Foundation Discussion
I agree that creating a zone of greater IPR certainty with lower
negotiation costs is a good goal.

On Jul 24, 11:08 pm, "Gabe Wachob" <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
> An early way I'm describing the Open Web Foundation is (as Scott says)
> not a Standards Body, but a "IPR DMZ" - (an intellectual property
> rights demilitarized zone).

Not to force the analogy, but I'd suggest that demilitarization is
hard to achieve in the patent licensing world simply because there
are too many insurgencies (trolls and even legitimate technology
developers) whose business model is to make money by sitting outside
community processes and pouncing when the opportunity arise. I'll
leave the insurgency/counter-insurgency discussion off here... :-)

I would suggest that goal might be IRP safe passage. A set of terms
that participants can agree to on a no-negotiation basis and then
attach to the work that they do. As others have said, this follows the
Creative Commons and open source model. There's no guarantee that the
license attached to a document is actually cleared, but at least
everyone is talking the same language.

>
> Most folks who are hearing about this haven't directly participated in
> a community standards effort, or a more formal standards body. They
> think the W3C/IETF/OASIS "covers it".
>
> But I think the sense of folks here is that there needs to be
> something lighter weight that's only focused on the minimum needed for
> a spec to become widely adoptable. For me, thats IPR hygiene -- almost
> everything else can be done *easily* without an org (save, maybe the
> organizational standup of a new org to hold/manage IPR). Having
> slogged through this IPR policy stuff several times,I'm really happy
> to see this effort to create a reusable framework for community
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

!!

> efforts. I only hope it remains lightweight and facilitates the widest
> range of community efforts as possible.
>
>      -Gabe

Ben Laurie

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 7:48:15 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Danny Weitzner <djwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that creating a zone of greater IPR certainty with lower
> negotiation costs is a good goal.
>
> On Jul 24, 11:08 pm, "Gabe Wachob" <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
>> An early way I'm describing the Open Web Foundation is (as Scott says)
>> not a Standards Body, but a "IPR DMZ" - (an intellectual property
>> rights demilitarized zone).
>
> Not to force the analogy, but I'd suggest that demilitarization is
> hard to achieve in the patent licensing world simply because there
> are too many insurgencies (trolls and even legitimate technology
> developers) whose business model is to make money by sitting outside
> community processes and pouncing when the opportunity arise. I'll
> leave the insurgency/counter-insurgency discussion off here... :-)
>
> I would suggest that goal might be IRP safe passage. A set of terms
> that participants can agree to on a no-negotiation basis and then
> attach to the work that they do. As others have said, this follows the
> Creative Commons and open source model. There's no guarantee that the
> license attached to a document is actually cleared, but at least
> everyone is talking the same language.

I think it is a given that we can only bind participants to IPR
agreements. Patent trolls are out of scope.

DeWitt Clinton

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 10:59:35 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
Jumping back in and popping back up the stack a bit:

The reason OWF is not a standards body is because we're explicitly saying that the OWF is not a standards body.  OASIS and IETF and W3C are standards bodies because their charters say to be standards bodies, and thus they are optimized to produce something called standards at the end.  One of the goals of standard bodies is to reduce competing or conflicting technologies; that is not one of our goals.  Also, standards bodies have accepted the challenge of convincing the world that their work is the canonical version of a given specification.  Again, that's not one of our goals.   (I'd also posit that one of the reasons it is difficult for a standards body to run a successful incubator in-house is because those goals, however good, are often at odds with getting immature technology off the ground.)

The end result of project that goes through the OWF incubation process is a working specification with clean IP that has demonstrated the ability to sustain a diversity of contributors.  Nothing more, nothing less.

That's not an easy thing to obtain, but it is easier to do that than build a actual standard.  The logical consequence is there will be specifications that make it through the OWF process that are non-standard.  And that's okay.

I do consider standardization a higher bar, and I hope many projects incubated with OWF go on to standardization at IETF, W3C, OASIS, or wherever.  But that is not our goal either.

Regarding IPR, yes, I think what we're trying to do is a) create some commonly agreed upon language around specification licensing, a. la. the CC license for copyright or the Apache license for source code, and b) ensure that all project contributors have agreed to those terms.  Challenges like dealing with non-contributors and/or trolls are out of scope (partly because I think those problems are intractable).

And popping way back up, I really hope we don't spend too much time creating committees.  The Apache governance model is pretty much the high end of what I personally have the stomach for.     The OWF governance model should be optimized for participation by busy engineers, not full-timers.

Cheers,

-DeWitt

Steve Ivy

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 11:29:18 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
DeWitt,

This is a great summation - thanks. While the OWF is not a standards
body, I expect that specs that come out of the OWF process with a
clean IPR bill of health will be easier to move through the standards
process, since the IPR issues will have already been dealt with.

--Steve

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:59 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote:

> The end result of project that goes through the OWF incubation process is a
> working specification with clean IP that has demonstrated the ability to
> sustain a diversity of contributors. Nothing more, nothing less.


--
Steve Ivy
http://redmonk.net // http://diso-project.org
This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private

Paul Downey

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 11:40:01 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
> The reason OWF is not a standards body is because we're explicitly
> saying that the OWF is not a standards body.

thanks Dewitt, that greatly reassures me.

> Regarding IPR, yes, I think what we're trying to do is a) create
> some commonly agreed upon language around specification licensing,
> a. la. the CC license for copyright or the Apache license for source
> code, and

I can see that working, with some legal resource, of course CC had
Larry Lessig to turn a sea of bespoke licenses into pressing a set of
simple radio buttons.

There are existing licenses to reuse, W3C document springs to mind,
but IANAL, and I for guess this to work, we're going to need one. Or a
bunch.

> b) ensure that all project contributors have agreed to those terms.

That's something every collaborative effort has to tackle at some
stage. Having a transparent, off the shelf process which scales
horizontally will help many and be invaluable. Is that the intent?

> The OWF governance model should be optimized for participation by
> busy engineers, not full-timers.

Bang on. Don't make me think!

Paul
--
http://blog.whatfettle.com

Gabe Wachob

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 12:12:41 PM7/25/08