[Openid-specs-ab] More on federation and control
mike at gluu.org
Tue Jul 31 19:35:45 UTC 2018
I wasn't going to comment any more on this, because I didn't want to
belabor the point.
But at the same time, I want to make it clear that I don't feel like my
issues were addressed. My actual experience was more like "crickets
chirping" on federation. The responses were so meager, and few and far
between, that it hardly qualified as any kind of discussion. I just
stopped commenting because it seemed futile--and that says a lot,
because I'm always up for a losing battle! Look at this one!
I still contend that the federation spec is a problematic precedent for
the Connect WG. You have a majority of the WG participants who don't
care about the spec. Their lack of comments is interpreted as assent. So
if there are five people really working on a spec, and four of them
don't agree with the editor, they can be "outvoted" (whether or not the
vote even happens).
I think the right way to handle the federation spec would have been to
make a sub-group for the spec (not it's own WG... that seems like too
much). And the participants in that sub-group could have discussed the
spec more efficiently--without wasting the time of the people who don't
care about federation, and without wasting the federation people's time
who don't care about all the other stuff the Connect WG does.
I wasn't going to comment any more because what's really clear is that
the current leadership doesn't want to give the community more control.
And maybe that's the whole point of OIDF. A standards organization that
looks and smells like a standards organization, but is actually an
easier place to get things done the way the editors like, without all
the messiness of consensus and forced collaboration.
- Mike Schwartz
More information about the Openid-specs-ab