[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

[Martin Atkins]

Nat Sakimura wrote:
> 
> /*BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed 
> to amend the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft may claim 
> OpenID trademark until it is ratified to be an implementor's draft 
> status or full specification status. */
> 

This is troublesome because generally OpenID specifications are named 
simply "OpenID <What It Does>" (see: OpenID Simple Registration 
Extension, OpenID Attribute Exchange).

Having to invent another name to use while drafting the specification 
seems like a needless waste of effort.

Can it not simply be required that the drafts display prominent 
boilerplate text explaining that the specification is only a draft? It'd 
also be good to get a policy in place for the expiry of unapproved 
drafts so that they go away after a period of time. For example, I would 
argue that we don't need eight historical draft versions of OpenID 2.0 
on http://openid.net/specs/ ; having it under version control and 
tagging the published drafts ought to be sufficient.