[OpenID] We Need a Site Editorial Committee (Was: Changes to the OpenID Foundation member page login)

[David Recordon]

Whether it's right or not, Scott and I manage the overall website.   
This largely grew out of Brad Fitzpatrick managing the website who  
then gave me access to it as well and Scott helping to facilitate the  
infrastructure that the site uses.  More thoughts inline...

--David

On Dec 5, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Johannes Ernst wrote:

> This is not the first time that some change was made to the  
> openid.net site that was not discussed up-front and that seems to  
> favor some people / vendors in the community more than others --  
> something we cannot afford to keep doing.
>
> Remember the list of recommended OPs?
> 	http://openid.net/get/
> I still don't know who maintains this list, and decides which  
> vendors are featured and which not?

Do you not remember what was there before?  It linked to http://wiki.openid.net/OpenIDServers 
.  People argue for making OpenID easier to use and easier for people  
to get started with, yet complain when people took the time to try to  
make it better.  I remember this thread over a year ago when it  
happened.  People complained though no one put in any effort to create  
a better solution.  Scott and I always said that if someone built a  
better solution it *would be used*!  Also, since then not a single  
vendor has contacted us about being listed on that page.

> Similarly, it is not clear who gets to blog on the openid.net front  
> page, and what they get to say.

Anyone that has asked has been able to write a blog post.  The process  
(which both Nat and Brian have used) is they'll draft a post and then  
Scott or I will help them edit it to make sure it isn't overly  
stressing a single vendor's product, has good english, is some form of  
OpenID related new, etc.  Once again, if you want to write then feel  
free to and we'll help you out.

> I said it back then, and say it again: we need to charter a site  
> editorial committee (or whatever we call it) that decides those  
> things by a vote, and BEFORE anybody makes any changes, not after.  
> That committee needs to have diverse membership, and minute all of  
> its discussions and decisions so it is very clear how these things  
> happen and the membership can hold it accountable.

Sure, if there's a group of people who *want to do the work* together  
then I'm all for it.  Having a committee of people arguing about how  
sentances are structured and unwilling/able to actually do the work  
doesn't interest me at all.

> <self-serving>
> If you members of the OIDF vote me on the board again, this will be  
> one of the first motions that I'll make.
> </self-serving>

And I'd vote for it as well if it's stipulated that the group of  
people must also be the ones doing the work not just bikeshedding (http://xarg.net/blog/one-entry?entry_id=20005 
).

>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Johannes.
>
>
>
> Johannes Ernst
> NetMesh Inc.
>
> <lid.gif> <openid.gif> http://netmesh.info/jernst
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general