[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

Nat Sakimura n-sakimura at nri.co.jp
Tue Jan 20 06:20:46 UTC 2009


So, for example, something like

DRAFT OpenID Discovery Extension 1.0?

I am fine with it, but what about other people?

Also, I was wondering if WG and the spec is 1 to 1.
In many standardization organizations, it is not 1 to 1,
and sometimes the WG name and the spec it produces
is completely different. (e.g., SSTC and SAML).

I have got an impression that at OpenID Foundation,
it is 1 to 1 right now, but is it the right way of doing it?
(It looks like it will hinder the modularization of the specs.)

=nat

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dick Hardt" <dick.hardt at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:11 PM
To: <board at openid.net>
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

> I would suggest having the word DRAFT in all caps on specs that are
> not approved, but enable the OpenID name to be included so that it is
> clear that it is intended to be an OpenID specification, as opposed to
> belonging in some other community.
>
> -- Dick
>
> On 19-Jan-09, at 7:30 PM, Chris Messina wrote:
>
>> I support with Martin's sentiments here.
>>
>> It seems like the simple approach is not giving a spec a version
>> number until it's finished. It's one thing if you want to call it
>> Draft 1, Draft 2, etc... but an x.0 version should be reserved for
>> final specs, as we did with OAuth before.
>>
>> Therefore, rather than it be "Resolution WG", it seems like the useful
>> verbiage would be "Resolution Draft X". That is, a WG distinction
>> seems not altogether productive if the desired outcome of such a body
>> is to produce specs...
>>
>> I also would love to see /specs completely redone and would be willing
>> to volunteer to help on that. It seems that it just hasn't been done
>> -- not that any one is necessarily at fault.
>>
>> I also support putting such content under version control, again, as
>> we did with the OAuth spec being hosted in Google Code.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks for your response.
>>>
>>> I like your idea and I was always assuming it to be like that (wrt
>>> the
>>> "Draft") but
>>> some people apparently see it as inadequate and that was one of the
>>> reason
>>> for the blockage. Starting off as just being "Resolution WG" etc.
>>> instead of
>>> "OpenID Resolution 1.0" seemed to be a necessary and reasonable
>>> concession to me at the time of creating the motion.
>>>
>>> It still is in a discussion period, so if anyone got an opinion
>>> around this,
>>> please speak up.
>>>
>>> Wrt the version control, I fully agree. I do not think sorting out
>>> http://openid.net/specs/ folder needs any Process document
>>> amendment so we
>>> can proceed fairly quicly.
>>>
>>> =nat
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> board mailing list
>>>> board at openid.net
>>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>>> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Messina
>> Citizen-Participant &
>>  Open Web Advocate-at-Large
>>
>> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
>> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
>> This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
> 



More information about the board mailing list