[OpenID] Could you update me of the status of CX WG proposal?

[Peter Williams]

Point of order.

The foundation is not supposed to have any control over technical work (complex or otherwise). There is supposed to be a firewall on this issue, so patent/corporate interests can be seen to have no unwarranted influence.

Can we create (under foundation ambit) a bird of a feather type forum, that has no lifecycle controls, and doesn't need to justify itself to anyone when posting community-consensus drafts? Its a meeting place that can write documents - with no particular standing (except in the minds of vendors actually using them) but follows ip release rules of "contributions". A wg can be formed later, if anyone cares, to bring the material under the greater ip protection umberalla of the foundation, under the "finalization" process.

this not ietf (a standards group) and there should be no formal group "steering" technical work. On that there is no point of order. An informal group of original founders might want to play that role with no power other than the respect they generate, providing its all pubic.

Its inappropriate to argue that "protection" of the brand (a foundation delegated authority) means some unaccountable (probably non disclosing, finance-style) committee gets to indirectly control community work - through scoping, formalization, or other political processes that only a selected few can participate in.



________________________________
From: David Recordon <drecordon at sixapart.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:56 AM
To: Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>
Cc: specs-council at openid.net <specs-council at openid.net>; OpenID List <general at openid.net>
Subject: Re: [OpenID] Could you update me of the status of CX WG proposal?

Replying here as well...

Hey Nat,
I think you can see from the discussion the past few days on the specs-council@ mailing list, the growing consensus is that the proposal is still too complex and needs to be simplified.

As to the OASIS comment, this isn't a standards body that is interested in doing any sort of work that comes along.  It must be related to OpenID which is why I think we're seeing this process take more time.  Also see the discussion from last week on the board@ mailing list about how we could make it easier for people to get started though still be a hurdle before calling their work "OpenID".

I'll figure out how to get your messages to the specs-council list, there really isn't a good reason for it to be members only versus allowing the specs council to work with proposers to turn their proposals into something that can be approved IMHO.

--David

On Dec 23, 2008, at 1:23 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:

Now almost a week has passed and I am pinging again in the hope that I will get something before Xmas.

Sorry to bug you guys, but I feel I have to to get the process moving...

It is 40 days since the revision, and 55 days since the first it has been submit...
It is taking way too long. Starting a TC at OASIS seems to be much easier.
That's not what we should be. We should be lighter weight and nimble.

# I am sending it to specs-council at openid.net<mailto:specs-council at openid.net> and CCing the members and general list because specs-council seems to be a members only moderated list.

=nat

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com<mailto:dick.hardt at gmail.com>> wrote:

On 17-Dec-08, at 6:17 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:

Hi.

Could you kindly update me of the status of CX WG proposal?
People are waiting for it.

Also, I think it is a really good idea to set up a ML for spec council so that people can mail the spec council collectively.
I am emailing to David, Dick and Josh just because I happen to have found them easily in my addressbook.
I wanted to email to the entire spec council, really.

I thought David was going to create a list for spec council.

Nat: I also cc'ed Mike Jones and Johnny -- the other two members of the specs council

-- Dick



--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/