[OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process

[Chris Messina]

I support with Martin's sentiments here.

It seems like the simple approach is not giving a spec a version
number until it's finished. It's one thing if you want to call it
Draft 1, Draft 2, etc... but an x.0 version should be reserved for
final specs, as we did with OAuth before.

Therefore, rather than it be "Resolution WG", it seems like the useful
verbiage would be "Resolution Draft X". That is, a WG distinction
seems not altogether productive if the desired outcome of such a body
is to produce specs...

I also would love to see /specs completely redone and would be willing
to volunteer to help on that. It seems that it just hasn't been done
-- not that any one is necessarily at fault.

I also support putting such content under version control, again, as
we did with the OAuth spec being hosted in Google Code.

Chris

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your response.
>
> I like your idea and I was always assuming it to be like that (wrt the
> "Draft") but
> some people apparently see it as inadequate and that was one of the reason
> for the blockage. Starting off as just being "Resolution WG" etc. instead of
> "OpenID Resolution 1.0" seemed to be a necessary and reasonable
> concession to me at the time of creating the motion.
>
> It still is in a discussion period, so if anyone got an opinion around this,
> please speak up.
>
> Wrt the version control, I fully agree. I do not think sorting out
> http://openid.net/specs/ folder needs any Process document amendment so we
> can proceed fairly quicly.
>
> =nat
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> Nat Sakimura wrote:
>>>
>>> /*BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have agreed
>>> to amend the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft may claim
>>> OpenID trademark until it is ratified to be an implementor's draft status or
>>> full specification status. */
>>>
>>
>> This is troublesome because generally OpenID specifications are named
>> simply "OpenID <What It Does>" (see: OpenID Simple Registration Extension,
>> OpenID Attribute Exchange).
>>
>> Having to invent another name to use while drafting the specification
>> seems like a needless waste of effort.
>>
>> Can it not simply be required that the drafts display prominent
>> boilerplate text explaining that the specification is only a draft? It'd
>> also be good to get a policy in place for the expiry of unapproved drafts so
>> that they go away after a period of time. For example, I would argue that we
>> don't need eight historical draft versions of OpenID 2.0 on
>> http://openid.net/specs/ ; having it under version control and tagging the
>> published drafts ought to be sufficient.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>



-- 
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
  Open Web Advocate-at-Large

factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private