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

Phil Hunt phil.hunt at oracle.com
Tue Jul 31 18:44:28 UTC 2018


The issue is checking back with an issue submitter whether their concern was resolved. Too often it feels like “Your concern was heard and we do not agree and have ignored it”. This seems to fly in the face of building consensus from the issuers perspective. 

You have also stated to me that the IPR vote has nothing to do with the evolution/consensus of the spec except legal standing to implement. But then why did you just presume consensus with with a 100% vote to implement?

This is why I have asked many times for more work on specs that seem to lack consensus before the IPR vote. For example backchannel was voter yes against my concerns. 

This process has been negative for newcomers and Mike S’s concerns were well founded in my experience. 

My point in commenting here is to improve OpenId process. 

As a corporate employee member I cannot vote. In the absence of consensus calls I effectively have no say in the spec process and am strongly demotivated by OIDF practices from contributing. 


> On Jul 31, 2018, at 11:04 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi Prateek,
> We wrote the “How do working groups work?” 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?” 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/20180731/7d138388/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list