[OpenID board] Finally the Shit has hit the fan!

Santosh Rajan santrajan at gmail.com
Mon Jun 7 13:22:24 UTC 2010


I know, that folks are gonna jump up and say that let us get Santosh the
author of this post banned!

Right, but not so fast!

Look at this Link.

http://hueniverse.com/2010/06/xauth-a-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-idea/

Six month back there was a lot of heartbreak bcos i called this man an
Idiot. And six months back this man admitted that I called him an idiot!
Yes! I called Eran Hammer Lahav an Idiot!

And look at the SHIT he has been drooling on us all this while. Don't you
see it guys? I am in the great mood to express my views in the "Choisest
vocabulary" short of getting banned here! So I shall refrain and use only
good vocabulary here.

Thank you all so much!




On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have great respect for your work Dick Hardt!
>
>  If anyone can bring this whole "MESSED UP" situation together, it is only
> you.
>
>  Also I will take up your suggestions, and desist from making any more
> comments on this forum.henceforth!
>
> Let us hope that you can take up this cause forward! Otherwise I am gonna
> come back here!
>
>  HAHAHA! I can see Brian Kissel and gang cleaning there pitchforks and
> lickin there lips in anticipation.
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Santosh
>>
>> While I agree that deciding what is respectful and disrespectful is
>> challenging and contextual, many participants in this community find some of
>> your emails counter productive.
>>
>> I would find your participation more productive if you commented on the
>> issues rather than the people. Negative comments about people may be
>> interpreted as attacks -- not what I hope you are wanting to accomplish.
>>
>> If you are concerned about someone's actions, I would suggest that you
>> describe the action and describe what you are concerned about. If you are
>> concerned about what Chris Messina has done, please describe what you think
>> it is he has done and why that is not in the best interest of the community.
>> Attacking Chris and challenging him on the list is not acceptable.
>>
>> I look forward to your continued participation and hope my suggestions are
>> helpful.
>>
>> -- Dick
>>
>>
>> On 2010-06-06, at 8:50 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>>
>> Who are the people in this world to decide what is "RESPECTFULL" and
>> "DISRESPECTFULL".
>>
>> "BRIAN KISSEL"?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Santosh, it’s not a question of expressing your views, it’s about your
>>> disrespectful personal attacks.  We encourage healthy debate on this list,
>>> but with respect and focusing on issues, not people.  When you say things
>>> like the following, you are not exhibiting the level of maturity and respect
>>> expected by other participants on this list.
>>>
>>>
>>> ·         Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE".
>>>
>>> ·         Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public,
>>> What Good Have you done for Google?
>>>
>>> ·         Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you
>>> were going to join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So
>>> don';t talk about this any more!
>>>
>>> ·         Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there
>>> nonsense anymore?"
>>>
>>> You have been warned many times about your behavior on the list, and
>>> temporarily banned from participating.  You may intend no disrespect, but
>>> the feedback I’ve gotten from others on the list is that your behavior is
>>> unacceptable.  Kindly refrain your comments to issues relevant to the group
>>> and eliminate the disrespectful personal attacks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> *___________*
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>*
>>>
>>> CEO - JanRain, Inc.
>>>
>>> bkissel at janrain.com
>>>
>>> Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502
>>>
>>> 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600  Portland, OR 97204
>>>
>>>
>>> *Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX.
>>> Learn more at **www.rpxnow.com*
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:
>>> openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 6:58 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* openid-board at lists.openid.net
>>> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your warning Brian. Let me put the whole subject in
>>> perspective once again.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) On 14th May 2010, Eran Hammer Lahav, posted on his hueniverse blog,
>>> about JRD. Right. The JSON version of XRD. I have been an ardent student of
>>> OpenID/XRD/Webfinger since January 2009. Webfinger and XRD really took of
>>> since May 2009. The moment I saw this JRD proposal by Eran on 14 May, I
>>> realized that something was up. I could not figure what was up at that
>>> moment. I mean why is Eran supporting JRD today after shouting on all roof
>>> tops about XRD?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) Sure enough, within the next 24-48 hrs David Recordon land the
>>> "OpenID.Connect" proposal here on this forum. Which happens to support JRD,
>>>
>>>
>>> 3) A bunch of Googlers chime in support of this proposal within hours.
>>>
>>>
>>> 4) And we have all read what has happened after that in these forums.
>>>
>>>
>>> All the points I have made above are well documented, in the posts of
>>> hueniverse, Openid board, and OpenID specs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian, as the chairman of the OpenID Board, I humbly request you to allow
>>> me to express my views in public. I want the freedom to express my views in
>>> public. Can I have that freedom? If you as chairman of the OpenID board have
>>> conditions for allowing such freedom, please let me know, and I shall abide
>>> by your conditions.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Santosh, these personal attacks are inappropriate for this forum as you
>>> have been notified many times in the past.  Please desist or be prepared to
>>> lose the privilege of participating in the dialog.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> *___________*
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>*
>>>
>>> CEO - JanRain, Inc.
>>>
>>> bkissel at janrain.com
>>>
>>> Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502
>>>
>>> 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600  Portland, OR 97204
>>>
>>>
>>> *Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX.
>>> Learn more at **www.rpxnow.com*
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:
>>> openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 1:51 AM
>>> *To:* openid-board at lists.openid.net
>>> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG
>>>
>>>
>>> Questions/answers inline
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Messina <chris.messina at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>>
>>> After reading your post below. I have a couple of questions.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) Instead of calling, the next version of OpenID, as suggested by you
>>> earlier "OpenID.Connect". Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE". That would
>>> be more appropriate. Do you agree?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I don't agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am glad you don't agree. We are both in agreement on this one point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) Who are you working for? If I remember correctly, you are currently
>>> employed by Google?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am employed by Google and thus I receive a paycheck from Google.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public, What Good
>>> Have you done for Google?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> However, I was elected to serve the OpenID Foundation board by the
>>> community for a two year term.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you were going to
>>> join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So don';t talk
>>> about this any more!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My role on the board is as an advocate for the community and its
>>> interests. If I were put on the board to fill Google's seat, I would
>>> advocate for Google's position. I hope that members of the OpenID community
>>> have the ability to distinguish between both entities, and when I'm speaking
>>> at the behest of one or the other.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there nonsense
>>> anymore?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I can keep these two sets of interests separate — sometimes aligned,
>>> sometimes not — I hope others can as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah right! "Your others have already gone into hiding!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Chris Messina <chris.messina at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> OAuth 2.0 does NOT solve the problems that OpenID was trying to solve. It
>>> is NOT a distributed identity system. If you can make discovery work for
>>> OAuth, then you can make it work for OpenID. OAuth implementations today do
>>> NOT have discovery.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps standards groups like the OpenID Foundation operate in a slightly
>>> different marketplace-twilight zone, but I'm curious how we define our
>>> customers — and how that definition should or shouldn't affect the work that
>>> gets done.
>>>
>>>
>>> For example, Luke — representing Facebook — is saying that there's not
>>> been sufficient adoption of OpenID over the past several years, and for the
>>> use cases that I've cared most about, I would agree with that assessment. It
>>> is not the case that OpenID hasn't been adopted — but that OpenID simply
>>> isn't the only game in town anymore, and that the market demand in the
>>> consumer space was unearthed and capitalized on by the likes of Facebook and
>>> Twitter, and NOT the many other OpenID providers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Facebook is saying that they want to work through the OpenID Foundation
>>> to help develop a technology solution that is more like what the market has
>>> already adopted — but that adds in discovery to aid in decentralizing
>>> identity, at least in a very primitive way (hence the Connect proposal).
>>>
>>>
>>> Dick, you seem to be saying that OAuth is not a distributed identity
>>> system, but that if discovery were defined for it (along with
>>> auto-registration of clients), then it would be useful as a distributed
>>> identity technology. Am I getting that right?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the divide here comes down to whether the OIDF should be focused
>>> on what the market demands and is willing to adopt *today*, or instead on
>>> the set of technologies that may enable distributed identity solutions
>>> *tomorrow*.
>>>
>>>
>>> My fear — which has been consistent — is that if we don't respond to the
>>> market's desires today (represented by Facebook, Yahoo, and other's
>>> comments) then we won't be part of the conversation when potential adopters
>>> are looking for better solutions tomorrow.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, if we spin out the Connect proposal — or cause it so much friction
>>> that it can't effectively proceed here — then by the time the ill-named
>>> v.Next proposal is completed (with all of the "necessary" use cases
>>> addressed), the world may have moved on, and the Foundation proven
>>> irrelevant. I don't see it as an all-or-nothing situation, but as others
>>> have said, there will be an identity piece baked into OAuth sooner than
>>> later, and if that  work doesn't happen within the OIDF, we're going to be
>>> pitching a product that no one has really said that they want, or are
>>> currently signing up to implement, based on the lack of clarity in the
>>> description of v.Next today, whereas there are already working prototypes of
>>> the Connect proposal in the wild.
>>>
>>>
>>> There needs to be a bridge between OpenID 2.0 — which is a perfectly fine
>>> solution for many use cases today — and the next iterations of OpenID 2.x
>>> and beyond.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Dick
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2010-06-04, at 11:14 PM, Luke Shepard wrote:
>>>
>>> > We have complained for years in the OpenID community that we don't see
>>> enough adoption. That we don't have a great mobile story. That the spec is
>>> too complicated. That relying parties can't get the attributes they want.
>>> The fact is that most of the major identity providers have adopted or are
>>> planning to adopt OAuth 2.0 largely because it solves many of those
>>> problems.
>>> >
>>> > I believe in OpenID. I believe in the concept of a decentralized
>>> identity. I think the OpenID Foundation, by bringing together myriad
>>> companies and individuals, is in a unique position to really help bring
>>> cohesive, standardized technology - but only if it responds to the realities
>>> of the marketplace.
>>> >
>>> > My main goal is to see the next generation of identity technology
>>> built. A secondary goal is that it is built within the OpenID Foundation. I
>>> don't know what the technology will look like exactly - both Nat's and
>>> David's proposals have merit. I think the best way to figure out the tech is
>>> to implement it, experiment, and try it out in production. I think the wrong
>>> way to make it happen is to bicker over the exact wording of the working
>>> group before it's even started.
>>> >
>>> > As Allen said, this work will happen - must happen. The main question
>>> to the OpenID Foundation is whether it wants to encourage innovation or
>>> drift into irrelevance.
>>> >
>>> > On Jun 4, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Allen
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for the response. My point in this email is that at the end of
>>> the meeting, it was agreed that Connect was not going to be done in the
>>> OIDF, which means the WG proposal would be withdrawn. With you and David
>>> agreeing on the specs council call that Connect should be a WG, that goes
>>> counter to what we had concluded at the meeting.
>>> >>
>>> >> Note that I was not the one to suggest that Connect was not going to
>>> be in the OIDF, but since that was what everyone had agreed to, there was no
>>> point in talking about how it would be done in the OIDF.
>>> >>
>>> >> -- Dick
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 2010-06-04, at 8:58 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi Dick,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Although I might not have expressed this as strongly as I should have
>>> last Friday, I believe that we should be working on an identity layer for
>>> OAuth2 within the OIDF.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Yahoo will definitely be implementing this, and I would expect that
>>> all other OAuth SPs to do the same. It would definitely simplify things if
>>> we could have a single standard interface that can do everything that OpenID
>>> 2.0 +AX+Hybrid can do today, and also be extensible to be used for future
>>> services and even for OP specific proprietary APIs as well.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I expect that an OAuth based identity layer would be widely
>>> implemented and far more widely used than OpenID, making OpenID largely
>>> irrelevant. Therefore, I think it's in the OIDFs best interest to back this
>>> imitative.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> However, on Friday, I did get the impression that there is not
>>> sufficent consensus to move forward. If that's still the case, then there's
>>> no point forcing the issue. The work is going to get done either way.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hope that clarifies things
>>> >>> Allen
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> David, Chris, Joseph, Allen
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> When we met last Friday to discuss how Connect and v.Next would work
>>> together, the four of you had agreed that it would be best doing the Connect
>>> work outside the OIDF. I had come to the meeting to talk about how we would
>>> merge or align the efforts, but since there was consensus to do it outside,
>>> we did not discuss.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> From actions I have seen today, it seems that there has been a
>>> change since then and that you are planning on working on Connect per the
>>> original charter. As emailed separately, I have concerns with the charter as
>>> drafted.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I am very disappointed that I learn about your change in mind by
>>> seeing postings on public mailing lists.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> WTF?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> -- Dick
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> board mailing list
>>> >> board at lists.openid.net
>>> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > board mailing list
>>> > board at lists.openid.net
>>> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Messina
>>> Open Web Advocate, Google
>>>
>>> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
>>> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
>>> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
>>>
>>> This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Messina
>>> Open Web Advocate, Google
>>>
>>> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
>>> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
>>> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
>>>
>>> This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>


-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20100607/ee125ebf/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the board mailing list