<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel rdf:about="http://blogmarks.net/api/marks/link/2856921">
<title>Public marks on http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/ce5397cfcf452ac4?dmode=source</title>
<description>Public marks on http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/ce5397cfcf452ac4?dmode=source</description>
<link>http://blogmarks.net/marks/link/2856921</link>
<items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li resource="http://blogmarks.net/api/user/benoit/mark/1057935627"/>
<rdf:li resource="http://blogmarks.net/api/user/karlcow/mark/1057935612"/>
</rdf:Seq></items>
</channel>
<item rdf:about="http://blogmarks.net/api/user/benoit/mark/1057935627">
<title>IPR Draft Guidelines - Open Web Foundation Discussion | Google Groups</title>
<link>http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/ce5397cfcf452ac4?dmode=source</link>
<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think the bylaws and clos= ed membership will keep the foundation consistent. It works well for the AS= F which is the model we are building on. As for the spec, I think it is rea= lly up to the personalities involved and the communities will need to self = regulate. The OAuth leads had an idea and we made sure the community didn't= change. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Je trouvais cette idee d'Open Web Foundation mediocre, maintenant ca pourrait friser le ridicule... :)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<dc:date>2008-08-04T15:41:24Z</dc:date>
<dc:author>benoit</dc:author>
<dc:subject>web, open, close</dc:subject>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="mark">
<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/ce5397cfcf452ac4?dmode=source"><img border="0" src="http://blogmarks.net/screenshots/2008/08/04/12945e514fa398ebadfa0ed777079064.jpg" alt="" /></a>
<div class="xfolkentry">
<h4><a class="taggedlink" href="http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/ce5397cfcf452ac4?dmode=source">IPR Draft Guidelines - Open Web Foundation Discussion | Google Groups</a></h4>
 
by <a href="http://blogmarks.net/user/benoit">benoit</a> 
 &amp; <a class="public" href="http://blogmarks.net/link/2856921">1 other(s)</a> 
<div class="description"><blockquote><p>I think the bylaws and clos= ed membership will keep the foundation consistent. It works well for the AS= F which is the model we are building on. As for the spec, I think it is rea= lly up to the personalities involved and the communities will need to self = regulate. The OAuth leads had an idea and we made sure the community didn't= change. </p></blockquote>
<p>Je trouvais cette idee d'Open Web Foundation mediocre, maintenant ca pourrait friser le ridicule... :)</p></div>
<p class="tags">
<a rel="tag" class="tag public_tag" href="http://blogmarks.net/marks/tag/web">web</a>
<a rel="tag" class="tag public_tag" href="http://blogmarks.net/marks/tag/open">open</a>
<a rel="tag" class="tag public_tag" href="http://blogmarks.net/marks/tag/close">close</a>
</p>
<div class="action-bar">
<a href="http://blogmarks.net/my/marks,new?id=1057935627">Copy</a> | 
<a href="http://blogmarks.net/link/2856921">React (0)</a></div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
</item> <item rdf:about="http://blogmarks.net/api/user/karlcow/mark/1057935612">
<title>IPR Draft Guidelines - Open Web Foundation Discussion | Google Groupes</title>
<link>http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/ce5397cfcf452ac4?dmode=source</link>
<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think the bylaws and closed membership will keep the foundation consistent. It works well for the ASF which is the model we are building on. As for the spec, I think it is really up to the personalities involved and the communities will need to self regulate. The OAuth leads had an idea and we made sure the community didn't change.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

open mais en fait closed.</description>
<dc:date>2008-08-04T15:27:14Z</dc:date>
<dc:author>karlcow</dc:author>
<dc:subject>openwebfoundation</dc:subject>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="mark">
<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/ce5397cfcf452ac4?dmode=source"><img border="0" src="http://blogmarks.net/screenshots/2008/08/04/12945e514fa398ebadfa0ed777079064.jpg" alt="" /></a>
<div class="xfolkentry">
<h4><a class="taggedlink" href="http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/ce5397cfcf452ac4?dmode=source">IPR Draft Guidelines - Open Web Foundation Discussion | Google Groupes</a></h4>
 
by <a href="http://blogmarks.net/user/karlcow">karlcow</a> 
 &amp; <a class="public" href="http://blogmarks.net/link/2856921">1 other(s)</a> 
<div class="description"><blockquote><p>I think the bylaws and closed membership will keep the foundation consistent. It works well for the ASF which is the model we are building on. As for the spec, I think it is really up to the personalities involved and the communities will need to self regulate. The OAuth leads had an idea and we made sure the community didn't change.</p></blockquote>

open mais en fait closed.</div>
<p class="tags">
<a rel="tag" class="tag public_tag" href="http://blogmarks.net/marks/tag/openwebfoundation">openwebfoundation</a>
</p>
<div class="action-bar">
<a href="http://blogmarks.net/my/marks,new?id=1057935612">Copy</a> | 
<a href="http://blogmarks.net/link/2856921">React (0)</a></div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
</item> </rdf:RDF>