[OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the Elections

Dick Hardt dick.hardt at gmail.com
Sun Dec 14 17:11:03 UTC 2008 

Well said Eran!

On 13-Dec-08, at 10:55 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> First, I hate the term "Open Stack". It is not a stack, it is a  
> bunch of specifications, most of which are far from finished or  
> adopted, which so far can be put together to produce pretty minimal  
> usefulness. Now, give this 'bunch' another year or two and I think  
> you will have a collection of building blocks that can truly empower  
> something great.
>
> My main objection to the "Open Stack" pitch currently proposed is  
> that it doesn't include HTTP, ATOM, XMPP, or other important  
> building blocks. It seems to be discriminating based its common  
> principals (where I usually stick my nose). So far, Portable Contact  
> is the only protocol where this "stack" is applicable, but even  
> there it isn't a stack but a combination of different protocols each  
> providing a different functionality.
>
> ---
>
> Second, as a contributor to OAuth and XRD (the new replacement for  
> XRDS/Yadis), I am not in favor of linking these technologies  
> together and suggesting their real value is as a package. They each  
> solve a very specific problem and can be used by open and close  
> products. In addition, OAuth, OpenID, XRD, Portable Contacts, etc.  
> still have a long way to go to establish themselves and get widely  
> adopted. In a recent conversation when someone suggested that OAuth  
> is widely adopted, someone else pointed out that "OAuth has some  
> adoption, TCP is widely adopted".
>
> OpenID has accomplished more than many other protocols in the  
> identity space but the rest of the protocols suggested as part of  
> this package still have a long way to go before they stand on their  
> own two feet.
>
> ---
>
> As to where *I* stand with regard to promoting the "Open Stack", I  
> don't. I promote individual protocols and specifications and suggest  
> their application based on the requirements and needs of the  
> engineers building a product. When the product being discussed was  
> Facebook Connect, I expressed my frustration (strongly, on this  
> list) that they did not incorporate at least OAuth, and potentially  
> OpenID in their product. These two protocols are extremely relevant  
> and useful, purely from a specification standpoint.
>
> The OpenID foundation should focus on OpenID adoption. The best way  
> to accomplish that might be showing how OpenID can be used as the  
> basis for a Facebook Connect like service, and in that case, other  
> specifications can be used. OpenID should not abandon its mission  
> and values and turn into an effort trying to selling something  
> "bigger and better" in which the OpenID protocol is just one moving  
> part.
>
> If OpenID cannot stand on its own, and I strongly believe that it  
> *can*, using more "generally related" specifications is not the  
> right approach. It would be like mentioning I know someone famous  
> when my own qualifications for a job are not sufficient.
>
> The OpenID board should focus on OpenID.
>
> EHL
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general- 
>> bounces at openid.net] On
>> Behalf Of Pat Cappelaere
>> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 8:48 AM
>> To: david at sixapart.com
>> Cc: Martin Atkins; general at openid.net List
>> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the Elections
>>
>> David,
>>
>> But where do you stand?  Is something that you support or not?
>> What would you be pushing if you were on the board?
>> It seems that you may not have a strong opinion and just want to talk
>> about it?
>> Pat.
>>
>> On Dec 13, 2008, at 11:00 AM, David Recordon wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Pat,
>>> I think it's something that is hard to predict the best answer to
>>> and a decision that cannot be made by the OpenID community alone.
>>> Getting to agreement between communities that we need a marketable
>>> brand for the "open stack" is the first step.  The second is
>>> deciding what that brand is.
>>>
>>> Just as the Data Portability group pissed off a lot of people by
>>> saying that it would represent their technologies, I'm afraid that
>>> if we unilaterally decide that OpenID will be this brand without
>>> first spending time talking and working with others that the same
>>> will occur.  It isn't just the OpenID community or Foundation to
>>> decide that we want OpenID to be this brand, but a collective
>>> decision between our community and a few others.
>>>
>>> If taken lightly, we will fail.
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>> On Dec 13, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Pat Cappelaere wrote:
>>>
>>>> I actually was hoping that more candidates would articulate their
>>>> positions on that matter :(
>>>> Raising a question is not quite sufficient.
>>>> Sorry :(
>>>> But I would like to thank Tom for declaring his position.
>>>> Pat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 13, 2008, at 5:31 AM, David Recordon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And this is the million dollar question! :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Should OpenID become the brand of the overall Open Stack or be a
>>>>> piece of technology that makes up a new brand.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 13, 2008, at 3:06 AM, Pat Cappelaere wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The question was about the branding position of the new board.
>>>>>> I am not sure that the OIDF could take over that Open Stack and
>>>>>> brand
>>>>>> it... Or this is what you are advocating?
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Pat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 12, 2008, at 9:06 PM, Allen Tom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Pat,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this question about branding, or a question about the
>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>> protocols and technologies?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as branding is concerned, my personal belief is that  
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> should be a single Open Stack Brand that includes OpenID, OAuth,
>>>>>>> XRD, Portable Contacts, XMPP, and other complimentary protocols.
>>>>>>> Most of the news articles that I've seen about Facebook Connect
>>>>>>> refer to OpenID as the open alternative to Connect, but OpenID
>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>> technology is just a small component of the stack that is needed
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> mimic Connect. Given that OpenID is already perceived to be the
>>>>>>> Open
>>>>>>> Stack, it might make sense to just group them all into one brand
>>>>>>> under OpenID name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Speaking as an engineer, in my opinion, it's far more important
>> to
>>>>>>> actually build and deploy an integrated solution than it is to
>>>>>>> worry
>>>>>>> about branding. That being said, a solution called OpenID/OAuth/
>>>>>>> XRD/
>>>>>>> PoCo/XMPP/XFN/hCard deserves a catchy name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Allen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pat Cappelaere wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would really like to hear from the candidates about OpenID
>>>>>>>> branding  and their position on possible brand extension with
>>>>>>>> OAuth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is their brand definition for OpenID and whether or not
>>>>>>>> OAuth
>>>>>>>> would be a natural extension?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really like the discussion that started with Eran and
>> Johannes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> general mailing list
>>>>>> general at openid.net
>>>>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general

More information about the general mailing list