[Openid-specs-ab] More on federation and control

n-sakimura n-sakimura at nri.co.jp
Wed Aug 1 04:39:20 UTC 2018


Hi Mike S., 

This is a message as a chair. 

Could you kindly file the issue to the tracker[1] so that it can be tracked as well as matched to the diffs. 

 [1] https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues?status=new&status=open

When you do so, please chose an appropriate component. In this case, I would use "Federation" as the component. 

These issues will be discussed in the call as well as on the tracker itself. 

If parties agree to the point, then you could probably create a pull request to the draft. 

That's how we work. 

Best, 


Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp>
Chair, AB/Connect WG, OIDF

PLEASE READ :This e-mail is confidential and intended for the named recipient only. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail.


-----Original Message-----
From: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> On Behalf Of Mike Schwartz via Openid-specs-ab
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 4:36 AM
To: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] More on federation and control

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
CEO Gluu

_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list