[OpenID board] Connect WG

Santosh Rajan santrajan at gmail.com
Mon Jun 7 04:25:38 UTC 2010


I have great respect for your work Dick Hardt!

 If anyone can bring this whole "MESSED UP" situation together, it is only
you.

 Also I will take up your suggestions, and desist from making any more
comments on this forum.henceforth!

Let us hope that you can take up this cause forward! Otherwise I am gonna
come back here!

 HAHAHA! I can see Brian Kissel and gang cleaning there pitchforks and
lickin there lips in anticipation.

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:

> Santosh
>
> While I agree that deciding what is respectful and disrespectful is
> challenging and contextual, many participants in this community find some of
> your emails counter productive.
>
> I would find your participation more productive if you commented on the
> issues rather than the people. Negative comments about people may be
> interpreted as attacks -- not what I hope you are wanting to accomplish.
>
> If you are concerned about someone's actions, I would suggest that you
> describe the action and describe what you are concerned about. If you are
> concerned about what Chris Messina has done, please describe what you think
> it is he has done and why that is not in the best interest of the community.
> Attacking Chris and challenging him on the list is not acceptable.
>
> I look forward to your continued participation and hope my suggestions are
> helpful.
>
> -- Dick
>
>
> On 2010-06-06, at 8:50 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>
> Who are the people in this world to decide what is "RESPECTFULL" and
> "DISRESPECTFULL".
>
> "BRIAN KISSEL"?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com> wrote:
>
>>  Santosh, it’s not a question of expressing your views, it’s about your
>> disrespectful personal attacks.  We encourage healthy debate on this list,
>> but with respect and focusing on issues, not people.  When you say things
>> like the following, you are not exhibiting the level of maturity and respect
>> expected by other participants on this list.
>>
>>
>> ·         Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE".
>>
>> ·         Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public,
>> What Good Have you done for Google?
>>
>> ·         Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you
>> were going to join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So
>> don';t talk about this any more!
>>
>> ·         Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there
>> nonsense anymore?"
>>
>> You have been warned many times about your behavior on the list, and
>> temporarily banned from participating.  You may intend no disrespect, but
>> the feedback I’ve gotten from others on the list is that your behavior is
>> unacceptable.  Kindly refrain your comments to issues relevant to the group
>> and eliminate the disrespectful personal attacks.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> *___________*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>*
>>
>> CEO - JanRain, Inc.
>>
>> bkissel at janrain.com
>>
>> Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>> 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600  Portland, OR 97204
>>
>>
>> *Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX.
>> Learn more at **www.rpxnow.com*
>>
>>
>> *From:* openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:
>> openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan
>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 6:58 PM
>>
>> *To:* openid-board at lists.openid.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your warning Brian. Let me put the whole subject in
>> perspective once again.
>>
>>
>> 1) On 14th May 2010, Eran Hammer Lahav, posted on his hueniverse blog,
>> about JRD. Right. The JSON version of XRD. I have been an ardent student of
>> OpenID/XRD/Webfinger since January 2009. Webfinger and XRD really took of
>> since May 2009. The moment I saw this JRD proposal by Eran on 14 May, I
>> realized that something was up. I could not figure what was up at that
>> moment. I mean why is Eran supporting JRD today after shouting on all roof
>> tops about XRD?
>>
>>
>> 2) Sure enough, within the next 24-48 hrs David Recordon land the
>> "OpenID.Connect" proposal here on this forum. Which happens to support JRD,
>>
>>
>> 3) A bunch of Googlers chime in support of this proposal within hours.
>>
>>
>> 4) And we have all read what has happened after that in these forums.
>>
>>
>> All the points I have made above are well documented, in the posts of
>> hueniverse, Openid board, and OpenID specs.
>>
>>
>> Brian, as the chairman of the OpenID Board, I humbly request you to allow
>> me to express my views in public. I want the freedom to express my views in
>> public. Can I have that freedom? If you as chairman of the OpenID board have
>> conditions for allowing such freedom, please let me know, and I shall abide
>> by your conditions.
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Brian Kissel <bkissel at janrain.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Santosh, these personal attacks are inappropriate for this forum as you
>> have been notified many times in the past.  Please desist or be prepared to
>> lose the privilege of participating in the dialog.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> *___________*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>*
>>
>> CEO - JanRain, Inc.
>>
>> bkissel at janrain.com
>>
>> Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502
>>
>> 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600  Portland, OR 97204
>>
>>
>> *Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX.
>> Learn more at **www.rpxnow.com*
>>
>>
>> *From:* openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:
>> openid-board-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan
>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 1:51 AM
>> *To:* openid-board at lists.openid.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG
>>
>>
>> Questions/answers inline
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Messina <chris.messina at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>>
>> After reading your post below. I have a couple of questions.
>>
>>
>> 1) Instead of calling, the next version of OpenID, as suggested by you
>> earlier "OpenID.Connect". Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE". That would
>> be more appropriate. Do you agree?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, I don't agree.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am glad you don't agree. We are both in agreement on this one point.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Who are you working for? If I remember correctly, you are currently
>> employed by Google?
>>
>>
>>
>> I am employed by Google and thus I receive a paycheck from Google.
>>
>>
>>
>> Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public, What Good Have
>> you done for Google?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> However, I was elected to serve the OpenID Foundation board by the
>> community for a two year term.
>>
>>
>>
>> Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you were going to
>> join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So don';t talk
>> about this any more!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My role on the board is as an advocate for the community and its
>> interests. If I were put on the board to fill Google's seat, I would
>> advocate for Google's position. I hope that members of the OpenID community
>> have the ability to distinguish between both entities, and when I'm speaking
>> at the behest of one or the other.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there nonsense anymore?"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If I can keep these two sets of interests separate — sometimes aligned,
>> sometimes not — I hope others can as well.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah right! "Your others have already gone into hiding!"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Chris Messina <chris.messina at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> OAuth 2.0 does NOT solve the problems that OpenID was trying to solve. It
>> is NOT a distributed identity system. If you can make discovery work for
>> OAuth, then you can make it work for OpenID. OAuth implementations today do
>> NOT have discovery.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps standards groups like the OpenID Foundation operate in a slightly
>> different marketplace-twilight zone, but I'm curious how we define our
>> customers — and how that definition should or shouldn't affect the work that
>> gets done.
>>
>>
>> For example, Luke — representing Facebook — is saying that there's not
>> been sufficient adoption of OpenID over the past several years, and for the
>> use cases that I've cared most about, I would agree with that assessment. It
>> is not the case that OpenID hasn't been adopted — but that OpenID simply
>> isn't the only game in town anymore, and that the market demand in the
>> consumer space was unearthed and capitalized on by the likes of Facebook and
>> Twitter, and NOT the many other OpenID providers.
>>
>>
>> Facebook is saying that they want to work through the OpenID Foundation to
>> help develop a technology solution that is more like what the market has
>> already adopted — but that adds in discovery to aid in decentralizing
>> identity, at least in a very primitive way (hence the Connect proposal).
>>
>>
>> Dick, you seem to be saying that OAuth is not a distributed identity
>> system, but that if discovery were defined for it (along with
>> auto-registration of clients), then it would be useful as a distributed
>> identity technology. Am I getting that right?
>>
>>
>> I think the divide here comes down to whether the OIDF should be focused
>> on what the market demands and is willing to adopt *today*, or instead on
>> the set of technologies that may enable distributed identity solutions
>> *tomorrow*.
>>
>>
>> My fear — which has been consistent — is that if we don't respond to the
>> market's desires today (represented by Facebook, Yahoo, and other's
>> comments) then we won't be part of the conversation when potential adopters
>> are looking for better solutions tomorrow.
>>
>>
>> So, if we spin out the Connect proposal — or cause it so much friction
>> that it can't effectively proceed here — then by the time the ill-named
>> v.Next proposal is completed (with all of the "necessary" use cases
>> addressed), the world may have moved on, and the Foundation proven
>> irrelevant. I don't see it as an all-or-nothing situation, but as others
>> have said, there will be an identity piece baked into OAuth sooner than
>> later, and if that  work doesn't happen within the OIDF, we're going to be
>> pitching a product that no one has really said that they want, or are
>> currently signing up to implement, based on the lack of clarity in the
>> description of v.Next today, whereas there are already working prototypes of
>> the Connect proposal in the wild.
>>
>>
>> There needs to be a bridge between OpenID 2.0 — which is a perfectly fine
>> solution for many use cases today — and the next iterations of OpenID 2.x
>> and beyond.
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> -- Dick
>>
>>
>> On 2010-06-04, at 11:14 PM, Luke Shepard wrote:
>>
>> > We have complained for years in the OpenID community that we don't see
>> enough adoption. That we don't have a great mobile story. That the spec is
>> too complicated. That relying parties can't get the attributes they want.
>> The fact is that most of the major identity providers have adopted or are
>> planning to adopt OAuth 2.0 largely because it solves many of those
>> problems.
>> >
>> > I believe in OpenID. I believe in the concept of a decentralized
>> identity. I think the OpenID Foundation, by bringing together myriad
>> companies and individuals, is in a unique position to really help bring
>> cohesive, standardized technology - but only if it responds to the realities
>> of the marketplace.
>> >
>> > My main goal is to see the next generation of identity technology built.
>> A secondary goal is that it is built within the OpenID Foundation. I don't
>> know what the technology will look like exactly - both Nat's and David's
>> proposals have merit. I think the best way to figure out the tech is to
>> implement it, experiment, and try it out in production. I think the wrong
>> way to make it happen is to bicker over the exact wording of the working
>> group before it's even started.
>> >
>> > As Allen said, this work will happen - must happen. The main question to
>> the OpenID Foundation is whether it wants to encourage innovation or drift
>> into irrelevance.
>> >
>> > On Jun 4, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Allen
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the response. My point in this email is that at the end of
>> the meeting, it was agreed that Connect was not going to be done in the
>> OIDF, which means the WG proposal would be withdrawn. With you and David
>> agreeing on the specs council call that Connect should be a WG, that goes
>> counter to what we had concluded at the meeting.
>> >>
>> >> Note that I was not the one to suggest that Connect was not going to be
>> in the OIDF, but since that was what everyone had agreed to, there was no
>> point in talking about how it would be done in the OIDF.
>> >>
>> >> -- Dick
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2010-06-04, at 8:58 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Dick,
>> >>>
>> >>> Although I might not have expressed this as strongly as I should have
>> last Friday, I believe that we should be working on an identity layer for
>> OAuth2 within the OIDF.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yahoo will definitely be implementing this, and I would expect that
>> all other OAuth SPs to do the same. It would definitely simplify things if
>> we could have a single standard interface that can do everything that OpenID
>> 2.0 +AX+Hybrid can do today, and also be extensible to be used for future
>> services and even for OP specific proprietary APIs as well.
>> >>>
>> >>> I expect that an OAuth based identity layer would be widely
>> implemented and far more widely used than OpenID, making OpenID largely
>> irrelevant. Therefore, I think it's in the OIDFs best interest to back this
>> imitative.
>> >>>
>> >>> However, on Friday, I did get the impression that there is not
>> sufficent consensus to move forward. If that's still the case, then there's
>> no point forcing the issue. The work is going to get done either way.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hope that clarifies things
>> >>> Allen
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> David, Chris, Joseph, Allen
>> >>>>
>> >>>> When we met last Friday to discuss how Connect and v.Next would work
>> together, the four of you had agreed that it would be best doing the Connect
>> work outside the OIDF. I had come to the meeting to talk about how we would
>> merge or align the efforts, but since there was consensus to do it outside,
>> we did not discuss.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From actions I have seen today, it seems that there has been a change
>> since then and that you are planning on working on Connect per the original
>> charter. As emailed separately, I have concerns with the charter as drafted.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am very disappointed that I learn about your change in mind by
>> seeing postings on public mailing lists.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> WTF?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -- Dick
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> board mailing list
>> >> board at lists.openid.net
>> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > board mailing list
>> > board at lists.openid.net
>> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Messina
>> Open Web Advocate, Google
>>
>> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
>> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
>> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
>>
>> This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Messina
>> Open Web Advocate, Google
>>
>> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
>> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
>> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
>>
>> This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://hi.im/santosh
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>
>
>


-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20100607/404e9af4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the board mailing list