[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Wed Jan 21 17:27:28 UTC 2009


I definitely prefer option 2) as it is safer IPR-wise (it is less likely to
be tainted) and more in-line with other technical standardization
organizations. Also, it is more democratic and market driven.

=nat

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:23 AM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com> wrote:

> Hey Nat et al,I think this discussion is really fruitful and is
> identifying the issues that we have right now with the process.  My point
> around naming conventions was less around if the spec title has "OpenID" in
> it or not at the start, but more around the bar to having "OpenID" in the
> title.  Today, the proposal needs to be approved by the Specs Council and
> membership (with a vote designed specifically to pass to make it easy to get
> started) but once this happens the bar of it becoming finalized and
> continuing to be called "OpenID" is also very low.  We're thus seeing the
> specs council try to raise this bar at the beginning which isn't working.
>  This should instead be happening toward the end.  This is further
> complicated by the amount of mandated review placed into the process making
> it take nearly a year to produce a new specification.
>
> I see two ways to solve this:
> 1) Keep the current process for working groups but create a lighter weight
> pre-process for proposals that don't yet clearly fit within the scope of
> OpenID.  This thus gives the specs council, community and membership a more
> tangible document to review during the working group process.  (In many
> cases, the OpenID-OAuth hybrid spec did this just outside the pervue of the
> OIDF.)
> 2) Change the current process to make it easier to get started, make sure
> that working groups are referred to was incubating, drafting, etc, and then
> add some form of community based technology review towards the end of the
> process.
>
> In either case, we should also address the amount of time currently
> allocated for various stages of review and clarify things such as if an
> implementors draft is or is not required.
>
> I'm thinking that a gant chart might be a useful way to look at these
> process options so I'll try to put one together starting with our current
> process.
>
> --David
>
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
> There seems to be two topics here.
>
> 1. Naming convention for the WG and Draft specs.
>
> One of the reasoning given by spec council for slowness for evaluation of
> the
> WGs were the Trademark issue. Specifically:
>
> "there are nearly no hurdles toward the end of the process to make sure
> that a specification really is "OpenID".  Instead, we're seeing the Specs
> Council place that hurdle at the beginning." (David Recordon)
>
> This specific motion was made to address this concern of Specs Council.
> It is upto the Specs council if either of the Chris's or Dick's proposal
> addresses this concern.
>
> My motion will definitely remove this concern, so I proposed it like that.
>
> 2. WG - Specs relationship
>
> I believe, until now, WG - Specs relationship was one to one.
> (Well, actually, there has been only one WG, which is PAPE).
>
> But consider something like Authentication spec.
>
> As a WG, it might start off as Authentication 3.0 or something,
> and in the end, it might want to decompose the spec into several part
> such as:
>
> * Discovery
> * Assertion
> * Authentication Protocol
> * Signature
>
> (I am not suggesting that it should be like this, by the way.)
>
> OR it could decide that it should afterall be just one spec.
> (This monolithicness is actually one of the good quality of OpenID Specs,
> IMHO)
>
> At the outset, the WG may not know which is the better approach.
> Limiting WG to produce only one spec is likely to tend to give bias towards
>
> monotlithic spec.
>
> As you have noted, this is not quite as pressing as the other one,
> so I have not included in my motions. It probably needs more discussion,
> and is not a OpenID Process issue, either, I believe.
>
> =nat
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Chris Messina <chris.messina at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I would suppose that it would look more like:
>>
>> OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT 1
>> OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT 2
>> OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT etc
>>
>> If there were a precedent within the OIDF for needing multiple WGs on
>> the same spec, it might be worth considering, but I'm not sure that
>> that's a problem we're going to have in the immediate future. I could
>> be wrong, but just doesn't seem like a pressing issue compared with
>> other matters.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp>
>> wrote:
>> > 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
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20090122/5f4daf15/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the board mailing list