Thanks for your response. <br><br>I like your idea and I was always assuming it to be like that (wrt the "Draft") but <br>some people apparently see it as inadequate and that was one of the reason <br>for the blockage. Starting off as just being "Resolution WG" etc. 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 around this, <br>please speak up. <br>
<br>Wrt the version control, I fully agree. I do not think sorting out <a href="http://openid.net/specs/">http://openid.net/specs/</a> folder needs any Process document amendment so we can proceed fairly quicly. <br><br>=nat<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Martin Atkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mart@degeneration.co.uk">mart@degeneration.co.uk</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;">
Nat Sakimura wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
/*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. */<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is troublesome because generally OpenID specifications are named simply "OpenID <What It Does>" (see: OpenID Simple Registration Extension, OpenID Attribute Exchange).<br>
<br>
Having to invent another name to use while drafting the specification seems like a needless waste of effort.<br>
<br>
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 <a href="http://openid.net/specs/" target="_blank">http://openid.net/specs/</a> ; having it under version control and tagging the published drafts ought to be sufficient.<div>
<div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:board@openid.net" target="_blank">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>