P.S. If "OpenID" being in it even if it was marked "DRAFT" slows down the creation of the WG, <br> then, I am against it. We need to make sure that WG formation is smooth and easy, <br> and all the works to be done inside the WG (for the obvious IPR and transparency reasons.)<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Nat Sakimura <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</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;">
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" target="_blank">dick.hardt@gmail.com</a>><br>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:11 PM<br>
To: <<a href="mailto:board@openid.net" target="_blank">board@openid.net</a>><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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" target="_blank">sakimura@gmail.com</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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" target="_blank">mart@degeneration.co.uk</a><br>
><br>
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>
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<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>
</blockquote>
<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" 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>
</blockquote>
<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" 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>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<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" 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>
</blockquote>
<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>
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<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>