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

Tue Dec 23 20:09:20 UTC 2008

Wonderful. As a members only list, I don't follow it.

The proof of power seperation is in the (xmas) pudding though.

If a major commercial rp site is using the openid logo (as we are promoting) and opts to adopt on that very endpoint some unfinalized spec (or a bof draft) there needs to be an governing assurance the foundation will not (and cannot) use its legal powers to influence that site's adoption or promotion of some community-sponsored method (in all good faith, obviously).

We want a cisco culture that is. Lead with actual proprietary deployments, give away the knowhow, then followup with another implementation of the std/finalized features that also achieves the initial design goals (hopefully in a manner better than the original work). Sites that never migrate are not penalized in any way tho.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Recordon <drecordon at sixapart.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 11:48 AM
To: Peter Williams <pwilliams at rapattoni.com>
Cc: Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>; OpenID List <general at openid.net>
Subject: Re: [OpenID] Could you update me of the status of CX WG proposal?

Hey Peter,
Two points here:

First, a discussion like this has been occurring on the board@ mailing
list in terms of creating a pre-working group phase where people can
come together and work under the IP structure though have no controls
in terms of getting started.  It thus becomes much easier to judge a
working group proposal once there is a draft.

Second, the specs council is not actually controlled by the Foundation
and was explicitly designed to help keep this separation.  Rather, it
is made up of five people selected by the entire group of past editors
of a finalized/published OpenID specifications and two representatives
selected by the Foundation's Board.  Currently it is Allen Tom, Johnny
Bufu, Brad Fitzpatrick, Josh Hoyt, and myself as selected by editors
and Dick Hard and Mike Jones as selected by the Board.

--David

On Dec 23, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Peter Williams wrote:

> 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/
>