[OpenID] PAPE Vote Discussion

Martin Atkins mart at degeneration.co.uk
Tue Dec 23 21:47:31 UTC 2008


David Recordon wrote:
> I'm also unconvinced that the working group (which I'm a part of) 
> followed the process as outlined for the work leading up to a membership 
> vote.  While I tried to discuss this on the PAPE mailing list yesterday, 
> Mike had the opposite interpretation and seems to have moved ahead 
> anyway.  While I believe that the PAPE spec should be approved (and have 
> voted to do so) I agree with Chris' concerns and the one I raised 
> yesterday about the process being unclear as to if the WG correctly 
> followed it or not.
> 

The bone of contention here seems to be that the PAPE working group 
didn't publish an "Implementer's Draft".

What are the disadvantages of not publishing an implementer's draft, 
other than just that it appears to break policy?

In other words, can we just remove that requirement from the process? 
I'd rather not have a needless extra step if it's not useful... but I'm 
sure it was put in there for a good reason. What was the thinking behind it?




More information about the general mailing list