[OpenID board] Repository place (was: Re: svn access)
recordond at gmail.com
Mon Dec 28 09:05:53 UTC 2009
Honestly, it's some hybrid based on what needs doing and who is able to do
it. We're no where near the staff of OASIS. In any model, the editors of a
working group should know who is contributing and make sure that they have
contribution agreements before giving direct commit access. :)
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp> wrote:
> Hi David,
> Hmmm. So, you mean, that at OIDF, the editors are fully delegated the
> responsibility to maintain the IPR integrity unlike OASIS etc. ? Since I was
> having OASIS as a model where TC admins (== OASIS staffs) and the
> infrastructure controls the access, and these processes are documented in
> the IPR process, I had an impression that that should be the way, but if
> OIDF takes this "Editor Controlled" model, I am fine with it. Perhaps
> 4.13 Intellectual Property. The WG will at all times comply with the IPR
> of the OpenID Process Document actually tacitly speaking of this "Editor
> Control" Model?
> (2009/12/28 15:43), David Recordon wrote:
> Hey Nat,
> The IPR process determines the process around contributions to a working
> group's mailing list. It is up to the editor(s) to be responsible in terms
> of requesting access to the specification's repository. The Board should be
> overseeing that a good IPR policy is in place and to
> provide infrastructure to working groups if it is missing.
> The Board should have less control over these sorts of minute details,
> not more. There are far more important things for the Board to spend time
> on compared to whether a given working group uses Subversion, Git, or
> Mercurial. If a working group's editor(s) can't make that decision then
> they shouldn't be editors. :)
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp>wrote:
>> Well, the users are specs@ but the board has an oversight responsibility
>> to avoid IPR contamination.
>> Thus, where the repositories are, and how they are managed are of interest
>> and responsibility of the board.
>> As to the location of the WG repositories are concerned, if we are allowed
>> to use ones that the WG likes, we probably need to establish a mechanism to
>> 1) Board approval on the location and the management method of the
>> 2) Advertise it to the internet (A link from WG main page should be good
>> It should not be complicated, but the mechanism should be well defined and
>> (2009/12/28 15:04), David Recordon wrote:
>> Agreed with Will. (And this is an issue for specs@, not board at .)
>> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Will Norris <will at willnorris.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure that it needs to be either/or. We have the 'openid' account
>>> secured on github, bitbucket, and google code. Let individual working
>>> groups use whichever version control system they are most comfortable with.
>>> Of course the final deliverables that come out of any working group should
>>> be in common location (such as http://openid.net/developers/specs/), but
>>> that doesn't necessarily mean that they all need to use the same technology
>>> to develop them.
>>> On Dec 26, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>>> > David and Allen,
>>> > I suppose we should ask the wider community, so I am including board@
>>> > in the distribution list.
>>> > For those of you who are new to this topic, we have been
>>> > "experimenting/trying a move to" github from svn. However, after
>>> > having used it for sometime, I have started to find some problems with
>>> > github and it now looks to me that bitbucket.org is a better option
>>> > than github.
>>> > The reasons are:
>>> > 1. It uses OpenID for web interface login.
>>> > 2. It allows the use of https logins through proxies so it can be
>>> > accessed through corporate firewalls etc. as well. (It is extremely
>>> > difficult to do this for github -- it can be done, but it probably is
>>> > beyond many people because you need to build a tunnel through the
>>> > proxy.)
>>> > 3. It allows CNAMEs when paid US$5 a month, so that it could be
>>> > accessed as openid.net., e.g., http://specs.openid.net/ax/ ->
>>> > http://bitbucket.org/openid/ax/ This is kind of vanity thing, but is
>>> > important to establish the "authenticity" of the repository to the
>>> > public.
>>> > For our use, I have secured account "openid" at bitbucket.
>>> > What would you think?
>>> > =nat
>>> > On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Nat <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> One problem that I found about github is that it is very difficult to
>>> >> configure it to work with corporate proxies. We started to use github
>>> >> translation project as well, but several members got stack there. Do
>>> >> know of a work around?
>>> >> =nat at Tokyo via iPhone
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at lists.openid.net
>> board mailing listboard at lists.openid.nethttp://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>> Nat Sakimura (n-sakimura at nri.co.jp)
>> Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
>> Tel:+81-3-6274-1412 Fax:+81-3-6274-1547
>> board mailing list
>> board at lists.openid.net
> board mailing listboard at lists.openid.nethttp://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
> Nat Sakimura (n-sakimura at nri.co.jp)
> Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
> Tel:+81-3-6274-1412 Fax:+81-3-6274-1547
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the board