OpenID Foundation/Board/Minutes/2007-06-07
2007-06-07, 12:00 PDT - 12:57 PDT
Present:
- Bill
- David
- Drummond
- Dick
- Johannes (minutes)
- Mart
- Scott (moderating)
Absent:
- Arthur
We are unclear which meeting minutes have been written, sent out and approved. In the future, we will nominate a volunteer to take notes at the beginning of each meeting.
Contents |
Incorporation status - Bill
Very close. Obtained input from the lawyers. Bill sent update e-mail earlier today. Comments are due by the end of close business tomorrow Friday. If no further comments, Bill will send execution instructions to get signatures.
What about the membership quorum issue? Applies to only those present.
Membership leads - Bill
Going "as nicely as it can", but we need to resolve the IPR situation before substantial membership commitments will occur. IPR is only critical path issue for getting money in the door.
IPR - David
Brief report about Tuesday meeting: all of those present were agreeable. Meeting notes will be published as soon as attendees have agreed to them.
Next steps: Microsoft lawyer will update draft, then feedback from the larger community.
Best guess is that tit will take another 2 months to get this complete. Would be nice if it was faster, but we are depending on external resources and external input that we don't have control over.
Marketing group - all
David: mailing list exists. There is a now an identity commons marketing group.
Johannes feels he doesn't have enough time to run this to "be volunteered". Johannes will put Dick and Mike Ozburn in touch to figure out next steps.
Concordia - David
There is a lot of confusion about who agreed to what per recent press coverage.
The OpenID Foundation stance remains unchanged: OpenID does not currently participate in Concordia, and regrets that information in the press indicates otherwise.
OpenID 2.0 specification update - Dick and David
There seemed to be agreement at IIW among specs editors, but it may not be there any more.
Does this discussion belong into a board meeting? Update yes, resolution no, as technical work is outside of the scope of the board.
Do we need better process? Open issue.
We urge the editors to use a process that produces specifications on time and with maximum agreement.
