[OpenID board] [OIDFSC] Fwd: Specs council status and work - POSSIBLE CALL TODAY
recordond at gmail.com
Sat Jun 5 03:10:53 UTC 2010
I don't think that it does anyone – let alone adoption – good for us to be
arguing about this on mailing lists. We very clearly have different
approaches to similar problems, but I think that we want the same thing in
the end though possibly on different timelines. I'm supportive of
overlapping work groups as a way to encourage innovation and look forward to
seeing any of the v.Next work groups produce technology.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010-06-04, at 7:49 PM, David Recordon wrote:
> Given that it's Friday at 8pm, I'll do my best to answer Dick's questions.
> Dick's assertion that the proposed Connect work group charter, "is vague,
> wide ranging and heavily overlaps other working groups" certainly applies to
> the v.Next proposals as well.
> I had asked clarifying questions the day you posted the charter.
> The v.Next WGs were decided upon at the OpenID Summit and existed prior to
> any public disclosure of Connect.
> The first sentence of the charter clearly states that the work group will
> be, "complementing other active OpenID Foundation Working Groups." If the
> Discovery work group becomes active and produces useful technology, it would
> certainly be adopted!
> please add that in then
> To date no one in the OpenID Foundation has done technical work on
> discovery since OpenID 2.0 was finalized. It's thus reasonable for it to be
> in scope and later abandoned if all works out. If it is removed from the
> scope and the Discovery work group doesn't produce a working proposal, this
> work group 1) couldn't discuss discovery and 2) would have to be fully
> rechartered in order to work on discovery.
> why not do the discovery work in the discovery WG? ... why duplicate the
> effort? you are part of the community, so you can participate in the
> discovery WG and promote the discovery work you want done. Makes no sense to
> do the same thing in two places.
> The goal of the charter is to help frame the problem the working group is
> going to solve; not answer all of the questions about how it will happen
> before the work group is even created.
> Not sure what that means. Your charter is vague. Please review my questions
> I inserted and tighten up your charter. I am not asking how the work will be
> done, I am asking for the charter to be clear and appropriately scoped.
> -- Dick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the board