There seems to be two topics here. <br><br>1. Naming convention for the WG and Draft specs. <br><br>One of the reasoning given by spec council for slowness for evaluation of the <br>WGs were the Trademark issue. Specifically: <br>
<br>"there are nearly no hurdles toward the end of the process to make sure
that a specification really is "OpenID". Instead, we're seeing the
Specs Council place that hurdle at the beginning." (David Recordon)<br><br>This specific motion was made to address this concern of Specs Council. <br>It is upto the Specs council if either of the Chris's or Dick's proposal addresses this concern. <br>
<br>My motion will definitely remove this concern, so I proposed it like that. <br><br>2. WG - Specs relationship<br><br>I believe, until now, WG - Specs relationship was one to one. <br>(Well, actually, there has been only one WG, which is PAPE). <br>
<br>But consider something like Authentication spec. <br><br>As a WG, it might start off as Authentication 3.0 or something, <br>and in the end, it might want to decompose the spec into several part <br>such as: <br><br>* Discovery<br>
* Assertion<br>* Authentication Protocol<br>* Signature<br><br>(I am not suggesting that it should be like this, by the way.)<br><br>OR it could decide that it should afterall be just one spec. <br>(This monolithicness is actually one of the good quality of OpenID Specs, IMHO)<br>
<br>At the outset, the WG may not know which is the better approach. <br>Limiting WG to produce only one spec is likely to tend to give bias towards <br>monotlithic spec. <br><br>As you have noted, this is not quite as pressing as the other one, <br>
so I have not included in my motions. It probably needs more discussion, <br>and is not a OpenID Process issue, either, I believe. <br><br>=nat<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Chris Messina <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chris.messina@gmail.com">chris.messina@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I would suppose that it would look more like:<br>
<br>
OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT 1<br>
OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT 2<br>
OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT etc<br>
<br>
If there were a precedent within the OIDF for needing multiple WGs on<br>
the same spec, it might be worth considering, but I'm not sure that<br>
that's a problem we're going to have in the immediate future. I could<br>
be wrong, but just doesn't seem like a pressing issue compared with<br>
other matters.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Chris<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Nat Sakimura <<a href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>> wrote:<br>
> So, for example, something like<br>
><br>
> DRAFT OpenID Discovery Extension 1.0?<br>
><br>
> I am fine with it, but what about other people?<br>
><br>
> Also, I was wondering if WG and the spec is 1 to 1.<br>
> In many standardization organizations, it is not 1 to 1,<br>
> and sometimes the WG name and the spec it produces<br>
> is completely different. (e.g., SSTC and SAML).<br>
><br>
> I have got an impression that at OpenID Foundation,<br>
> it is 1 to 1 right now, but is it the right way of doing it?<br>
> (It looks like it will hinder the modularization of the specs.)<br>
><br>
> =nat<br>
><br>
> --------------------------------------------------<br>
> From: "Dick Hardt" <<a href="mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com">dick.hardt@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:11 PM<br>
> To: <<a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process<br>
><br>
>> I would suggest having the word DRAFT in all caps on specs that are<br>
>> not approved, but enable the OpenID name to be included so that it is<br>
>> clear that it is intended to be an OpenID specification, as opposed to<br>
>> belonging in some other community.<br>
>><br>
>> -- Dick<br>
>><br>
>> On 19-Jan-09, at 7:30 PM, Chris Messina wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> I support with Martin's sentiments here.<br>
>>><br>
>>> It seems like the simple approach is not giving a spec a version<br>
>>> number until it's finished. It's one thing if you want to call it<br>
>>> Draft 1, Draft 2, etc... but an x.0 version should be reserved for<br>
>>> final specs, as we did with OAuth before.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Therefore, rather than it be "Resolution WG", it seems like the useful<br>
>>> verbiage would be "Resolution Draft X". That is, a WG distinction<br>
>>> seems not altogether productive if the desired outcome of such a body<br>
>>> is to produce specs...<br>
>>><br>
>>> I also would love to see /specs completely redone and would be willing<br>
>>> to volunteer to help on that. It seems that it just hasn't been done<br>
>>> -- not that any one is necessarily at fault.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I also support putting such content under version control, again, as<br>
>>> we did with the OAuth spec being hosted in Google Code.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Chris<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Nat Sakimura <<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com">sakimura@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Thanks for your response.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I like your idea and I was always assuming it to be like that (wrt<br>
>>>> the<br>
>>>> "Draft") but<br>
>>>> some people apparently see it as inadequate and that was one of the<br>
>>>> reason<br>
>>>> for the blockage. Starting off as just being "Resolution WG" etc.<br>
>>>> instead of<br>
>>>> "OpenID Resolution 1.0" seemed to be a necessary and reasonable<br>
>>>> concession to me at the time of creating the motion.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> It still is in a discussion period, so if anyone got an opinion<br>
>>>> around this,<br>
>>>> please speak up.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Wrt the version control, I fully agree. I do not think sorting out<br>
>>>> <a href="http://openid.net/specs/" target="_blank">http://openid.net/specs/</a> folder needs any Process document<br>
>>>> amendment so we<br>
>>>> can proceed fairly quicly.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> =nat<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Martin Atkins <<a href="mailto:mart@degeneration.co.uk">mart@degeneration.co.uk</a><br>
>>>> ><br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Nat Sakimura wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> /*BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have<br>
>>>>>> agreed<br>
>>>>>> to amend the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft may<br>
>>>>>> claim<br>
>>>>>> OpenID trademark until it is ratified to be an implementor's<br>
>>>>>> draft status or<br>
>>>>>> full specification status. */<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> This is troublesome because generally OpenID specifications are<br>
>>>>> named<br>
>>>>> simply "OpenID <What It Does>" (see: OpenID Simple Registration<br>
>>>>> Extension,<br>
>>>>> OpenID Attribute Exchange).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Having to invent another name to use while drafting the<br>
>>>>> specification<br>
>>>>> seems like a needless waste of effort.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Can it not simply be required that the drafts display prominent<br>
>>>>> boilerplate text explaining that the specification is only a<br>
>>>>> draft? It'd<br>
>>>>> also be good to get a policy in place for the expiry of unapproved<br>
>>>>> drafts so<br>
>>>>> that they go away after a period of time. For example, I would<br>
>>>>> argue that we<br>
>>>>> don't need eight historical draft versions of OpenID 2.0 on<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://openid.net/specs/" target="_blank">http://openid.net/specs/</a> ; having it under version control and<br>
>>>>> tagging the<br>
>>>>> published drafts ought to be sufficient.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> board mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --<br>
>>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
>>>> <a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/" target="_blank">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> board mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Chris Messina<br>
>>> Citizen-Participant &<br>
>>> Open Web Advocate-at-Large<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="http://factoryjoe.com" target="_blank">factoryjoe.com</a> # <a href="http://diso-project.org" target="_blank">diso-project.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://citizenagency.com" target="_blank">citizenagency.com</a> # <a href="http://vidoop.com" target="_blank">vidoop.com</a><br>
>>> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private<br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> board mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> board mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
>> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> board mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div>--<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">Chris Messina<br>
Citizen-Participant &<br>
Open Web Advocate-at-Large<br>
<br>
<a href="http://factoryjoe.com" target="_blank">factoryjoe.com</a> # <a href="http://diso-project.org" target="_blank">diso-project.org</a><br>
<a href="http://citizenagency.com" target="_blank">citizenagency.com</a> # <a href="http://vidoop.com" target="_blank">vidoop.com</a><br>
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:board@openid.net">board@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br><a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>