Draft OpenID v.Next Discovery working group charter

[SitG Admin]

Aha!

>You seemed to have missed the point of the text I cited, which 
>rather explicitly argues against your desire to support unspecified 
>future features.

This lies at the heart of it: you have been erroneously thinking that 
I desire OpenID v.Next to *support* unspecified future features. I 
only want to be ready for them.

You may have noticed some frustration being expressed, over the past 
few months, about how slowly progress was being made? John Bradley 
asked me:

"Shade,  is there specific language that you would like in the charter?"

My answer, to cite the portion directly relevant here, was:

"establishing some criteria in advance (and as the WG members who are 
approving/denying the v.Next specs are still familiar with the 
criteria they use for that process) could be a helpful addition to 
the charter"

Waiting for v.Next+1 could mean new WG members, could mean 
reinventing the wheel; preparing to expedite the process seems like a 
good investment to avoid future delays of the sort that have been so 
frustrating.

The community's focus has been on getting a working version ready. 
(As you said, narrow scope, solving immediate problems.) I'm not 
suggesting "hooks" to support, in advance, features that may never 
arrive (or which may be so late as to be better proposed for 
v.Next+1, or which may flunk a peer review), I'm 1) voicing my 
approval of language *already IN the charter(!)* and 2) proposing 
that WG members who are *already* articulating their reasons for 
various decisions (to convince others in their WG) formally document 
those reasons for future reference.

If you want to address anything other than those two points, please 
show how they are connected to either of those points; I won't feel 
obliged to respond, otherwise. Questions about Tor/XRI/DNS/and 
Internet architecture in general, or my understanding thereof, can be 
taken off-list; my priority is development, though, and I've 
explained some of what you're curious about in previous posts to this 
(and the General) list (Scroogle the archives for details).

-Shade

Postscript: okay, so Scroogle is down; Google then, and nudge Google 
corporate about privacy for searchers:

https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cgi