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

Tue Dec 23 21:30:13 UTC 2008

board at openid.net is not a members only list, anyone can join and post  
to it as evidenced by a bunch of people who already do.

--David

On Dec 23, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Peter Williams wrote:

> 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/
>>
>
>