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

Santosh Rajan santrajan at gmail.com
Mon Jun 7 15:26:26 UTC 2010


Do you know about four letter words that follow three letter words. I think
that is what you deserve!


On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Johannes Ernst <jernst at netmesh.us> wrote:

> Santosh, personally my patience with you is at an end. You occasionally
> make a useful contribution, but I do not intend to waste any more of my time
> arguing with you about what is and isn't polite, which takes up more time
> than your valuable contributions.
>
> As I finish this e-mail, I will write a "Santosh kill rule" for my e-mail
> in-box, and that's it then for me, regardless of whether you ever get banned
> from any list or not.
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2010, at 6:22, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20100607/0a45221c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the board mailing list