- Idpy-board - lists3.sunet.se

Agenda: idpy Board call, 12 December 2018

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

BlueJeans link: https://bluejeans.com/840642655 Date/Time: Wednesday, 12 December 2018 @ 19:00 UTC Agenda 0. Agenda bash 1. IPR - GÉANT and IPR (What is the relationship between IPR and the GEANT project? The default clause in the consortium agreement is that GEANT holds the IPR on behalf of the consortium. Need to see how that would play out if that means handing the IPR over to a third party. Action item for Christos to follow up on.) - Draft Note Well (see email sent 11 December 2018) - Next steps? 2. Review the criteria for bring in new projects to idpy (Practical use case: evolution of pyFF) - https://github.com/IdentityPython/IdentityPython.github.io/wiki/Adding-and-… 3. TIIME? - idpy Developers meeting @ TIIME, Monday, 11 February 2018 4. AOB

6 years

1
0
0 0

DRAFT: idpy Note Well

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

To discuss on our call tomorrow... ---- DRAFT Identity Python Note Well This is a reminder of Identity Python policies in effect on various topics such as patents or other IPR. * By participating (e.g., submitting code, attending in conference calls or meetings, posting to project mailing lists) in Identity Python projects, you agree to follow Identity Python processes and policies as defined in the Identity Python governance pages and in the GitHub Terms of Service. * If you are aware that any code component or idea within an Identity Python project is covered by patents or patent applications that are owned or controlled by you or your sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in the discussion. * As a participant or attendee, you agree to work respectfully with other participants; please contact the Identity Python board (board at idpy.org) if you have any questions or concerns about this.

6 years

1
0
0 0

Doodle poll: next idpy board call

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Hola a todos! I've put together a doodle poll to help us find a time for our next call: https://doodle.com/poll/p3rcfmipfte9mhpw If you would take a few moments to fill that out, we can get that on the calendar. Thanks! Heather

6 years, 1 month

1
1
0 0

Legal review - idpy board statutes

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Hola a todos (and my last idpy email for the day, I think) One of the items from our call yesterday was making sure that board members have an opportunity to have their respective legal teams review anything before signing. The only item we have for signature is the board statutes: https://github.com/IdentityPython/Governance/blob/master/DRAFT-idpy-statute… The board statutes do presume we go with Commons Conservancy, and we haven't explicitly made that decision. So we have a bit of a Catch 22. What I propose is to make an informal decision as to whether we're ok with going ahead with CC, then allow time for board members to get a legal review of this document, and finally adjust and sign as needed. So, for that first step: does anyone need additional information regarding potential IPR homes, or specific questions about Commons Conservancy? Thanks! Heather

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Notes: idpy board call, 13 November 2017

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Notes: 0. Agenda bash 1. Introductions - Heather Flanagan - Ivan Kanakarakis (SUNET, lead architect for Satosa, pySAML) - Leif Johansson (SUNET) - Roland Hedberg (independent, original developer and architect) - Christos Kanellopoulos (GÉANT) - Chris Whalen (individual contributor) - Mike Jones (Director OIDF, author of OIDC and JWT and OAuth) 2. Governance documents - https://github.com/IdentityPython/Governance 3. Discussing and possibly approving the use of Commons Conservancy as our IPR home - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1h2mFQHGhJualJWTwtt-ivpkJvUZP960f?us… Why do we want an IPR home? Today, all the code is copyrighted at various organizations. If we want to have other organizations rely on it, it might help if the copyright notices are at an organization that is demonstrated to be neutral, not affiliated with any commercial interest, and hard to take over. We (probably) would need to reassign copyright to them. We also might want the ability to take donations and hire more developers. Ivan is on staff, paid for by GÉANT, but we might want additional resources at some point (e.g., students, developers, other). Commons Conservancy offers a separate service that supports the financial end of things, and while we don’t need that right now, we might in the future. Can the Conservancy defend IPR in court for a project? They have a network of volunteer lawyers who would be interested in taking on pro bono work. Note that it is really hard to bring a lawsuit for something based in The Netherlands. This is a difference between some of the Foundations out there (e.g., OIDF, Free Software Foundation, Linux Foundation). Note that organizations like Linux Foundation will charge a much higher overhead. The Apache Foundation leaves you locked to a specific license model. So, there are pros and cons for all the above. Donating money to Commons Conservancy/NLNet gets you some tax advantages. Note that Commons Conservancy hasn’t been around all that long, so some of their assertions re: “unlikely to be sued” might be naive. What is the relationship between IPR and the GEANT project? The default clause in the consortium agreement is that GEANT holds the IPR on behalf of the consortium. Need to see how that would play out if that means handing the IPR over to a third party. Action item for Christos to follow up on. Procedural note: board members need to have an opportunity to have their legal team(s) review anything that requires a signature. 4. The pros/cons for requiring a CLA (and possibly making a decision on that) An initial discussion around CLAs had taken place on the mailing list: https://lists.sunet.se/pipermail/idpy-discuss/2018-April/000146.html https://lists.sunet.se/pipermail/idpy-discuss/2018-June/000188.html and, the related discussion for the criteria for new projects: https://lists.sunet.se/pipermail/idpy-discuss/2018-February/000098.html Ivan: Given the current GitHub terms, we are probably covered. But the terms take place from a certain date; before that date all contributions made are under a different state. We need to figure out whether we want to bring these changes up to our current license agreements, and whether or not we’ll need CLAs for everyone from now on. Roland: When did the GitHub terms change? Need to verify. Leif: Originally was on the side of needing CLAs, but after reviewing the arguments, decided against it. This is more like the IETF Note Well. By being in the room and contributing, you’re acknowledging what you need to do. That’s slightly different than saying “can I commit this code/write this draft/be in this meeting” and having to bring this to a company lawyer that has no interest in understanding whether this is ok or not. Roland: Also not in the camp of doing CLAs. The sheer amount of work to track everyone down is very high. Leif: will need to do some background work - are there any contributions we’re unsure of? (e.g., if a project pulled in an external dependency that had an incompatible license). Perhaps we want to formulate our own Note Well/Terms of Service? Chris: what kind of guidance do organizations have for their employees? It varies significantly Mike: for contributing to Google projects and OIDF you have to sign CLAs. Leif: in some organizations, developers are explicitly kept away from lawyers. We should not put people into a situation where they have to bring lawyers into it. We should create something “here’s what we think you should have the right to do. If you don’t, go away.” Christos: There are two aspects here, one is about the past, one about the future. Leif: we have to do something for the past. Some sort of transfer of authority to Commons Conservancy. Ivan: Need to decide what to do with contributors for people who contributed before 2017; we have a list of who has contributed as a whole, just need to figure out which among those contributed before 2017. Christos: If we’re going to use something like Commons Conservancy, does this become their problem? No, because we have to transfer the license over to them. Action items: Determine list of contributors from before 2017 GitHub term changes; create a Note Well 5. review the criteria for bring in new projects to idpy - https://github.com/IdentityPython/IdentityPython.github.io/wiki/Adding-and-… Practical use case: evolution of pyFF Holding topic to next call 6. Administrivia * Call frequency? More frequent calls to start; next call in 2-3 weeks * Publicly posted meeting agenda, meeting notes? Heather will post to the board mailing list; items that shouldn’t be public (which should be exceedingly rare) shouldn’t be noted. OK to make the mailing list archives. 7. AOB

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Agenda: idpy Board kick off call, 13 November 2018

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Date/Time: 13 November 2018 @ 21:00 UTC BlueJeans link: https://bluejeans.com/721110676 Agenda: 0. Agenda bash 1. Introductions - Heather - Ivan - Leif - Roland - Christos - Chris - Mike 2. Governance documents - https://github.com/IdentityPython/Governance 3. Discussing and possibly approving the use of Commons Conservancy as our IPR home - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1h2mFQHGhJualJWTwtt-ivpkJvUZP960f?us… 4. The pros/cons for requiring a CLA (and possibly making a decision on that) An initial discussion around CLAs had taken place on the mailing list: https://lists.sunet.se/pipermail/idpy-discuss/2018-April/000146.html https://lists.sunet.se/pipermail/idpy-discuss/2018-June/000188.html and, the related discussion for the criteria for new projects: https://lists.sunet.se/pipermail/idpy-discuss/2018-February/000098.html 5. review the criteria for bring in new projects to idpy - https://github.com/IdentityPython/IdentityPython.github.io/wiki/Adding-and-… 6. Administrivia * Call frequency? * Publicly posted meeting agenda, meeting notes? 7. AOB

6 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Scheduling our first idpy board meeting

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Hi all, I don't think we'll be able to get everyone physically in the same place at the same time (though we have most of you here at Internet2's Technology Exchange this week; let me know if you think we can find a time to meet and dial in Mike). That said, let's see about getting a call on the calendar. Initial agenda items will include discussing and possibly approving the use of Commons Conservancy as our IPR home, the pros/cons for requiring a CLA (and possibly making a decision on that), and review the criteria for bring in new projects to idpy. Here's a doodle poll for a first call: https://doodle.com/poll/9vi8asepdq4yfyaz If you could fill that out this week, that'd be grand. We're looking at participants from the US West Coast to Sweden, so our viable options are somewhat limited. Thanks for your time! Heather

6 years, 1 month

2
3
0 0

possible new project

by leifj＠sunet.se

The pyFF project which is part of IdentityPython has been working with RA21 to produce a PoC discovery service (as some of you already know). At a meeting in Orlando yesterday it was decided to push forward with a production-scale pilot. To this end it becomes necessary to separate the frontend (i.e "webby") parts of the pyFF discovery service from the pyFF codebase. Although pyFF is mainly python the discovery parts were always mostly javascript and other frontend technologies and so do not obviously fit within IdentityPython as a project. However I would like to make the yet-to-be-named frontend parts of pyFF into an IdentityPython project and put this question to the board to discuss. Cheers Leif PS Yes Mike we know about accountchooser and openyolo but our requirements have pushed us in a different direction DS

6 years, 2 months

2
1
0 0

test

by leifj＠sunet.se

Does this reach the Identity Python board? Cheers Leif

6 years, 2 months

6
5
0 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

Idpy-board