[Openid-specs-ab] ABSTAIN on the vote to approve Implementer’s Draft of OpenID Connect Federation Specification

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Tue Jul 31 17:04:03 UTC 2018


Hi Prateek,



We wrote the “How do working groups work?<http://openid.net/wg/about/>” doc in response to feedback from you and Phil earlier on wanting to understand the working group processes better.  Thanks for asking us to write that.  If there are points that you believe still need to be described better, please let us know.  We want everyone to understand how to effectively contribute to OpenID working groups.  (My apologies that it took me a while to get to it – lots going on!)



As has been documented earlier on this list, no comments are being ignored and none will be.  In fact, the editors responded to Mike Schwartz and Filip Skokan, who provided editorial feedback, saying that their suggested improvements will be incorporated in the next draft (see http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/Week-of-Mon-20180611/006794.html).  This will occur following the current IPR vote.



Yes, we can take the feedback into account that you’d like more explicit notification prior to all foundation-wide votes, and do this more clearly in the future.  That being said, given that there was a unanimous decision to seek IPR protections for implementers at the in-person working group meeting that you hosted at Oracle, I don’t understand why you’re saying now that you were surprised.  If you thought there was anything to discuss when the decision was made, you could have spoken up then and the working group would had a conversation about it on the spot.



Finally, please read what the “How do working groups work?<http://openid.net/wg/about/>” doc says about Implementer’s Drafts and the value of implementation.  An Implementer’s Draft is no different than any other draft, other than that the working group has decided that enough new content is there that it’s worth locking in IPR commitments to protect implementers who are producing experimental implementations so as to be able to provide feedback on the draft.  Changes can and will be made in the future – many of them informed by what’s learned from the experimental implementations that the working group wants to encourage as a core part of how we produce high-quality, implementable, deployable specifications.



We value your input and do seek to have effective working group experiences for all participants.



                                                       Thanks again,

                                                       -- Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: Prateek Mishra <Prateek.Mishra at oracle.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:35 AM
To: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Cc: Mike Schwartz <mike at gluu.org>; Don Thibeau <don at oidf.org>; Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>; Phil Hunt <phil.hunt at oracle.com>
Subject: ABSTAIN on the vote to approve Implementer’s Draft of OpenID Connect Federation Specification



I have voted to abstain. I did not find a way to add a comment to the vote, hence this message.



This reflects our perception that there are WG consensus issues where feedback on issues is received and apparently ignored in the perception of the submitter.



Editors need to confirm agreement and chairs should be calling for consensus on items which might not yet be resolved.



There should be a notice prior to major voting calling for all participants to review the document before the vote. This should be a “consensus call”.”




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20180731/c88f3315/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list