[OpenID] [SPAM]Re: [SPAM]Re: PAPE Specification Review Period Commencing

Thu Oct 23 15:32:43 UTC 2008

>From the tone, I don't this your emails come across as displaying any of the negative feature you describe. Don't always take email discussion so personally! Its friendly banter.

OpenID is only just emerging as a forum with an explicit  governance culture. And it will take time to evolve its own style. One helps form it by doing exactly what you do: contribute in public, on the record. Even folks like me, from the bottom half of the class, have some technical say, in general forums. Obviously, that means my opinion should have little weight.. buts that's fine! Ill slowly improve to the point in OpenID tech where I can *usefully* join a WG.

We could have a line-based word-smithing culture in last call (arguing about precise use of engineering language, often), or an issue culture (designed to gauge the consensus). It's upto the membership. As far as I can tell, this is really the first run through the full process.

As a last call process, however, I don't  think one should argue that ANY specific text should change (that was the WG's work, now complete to last call status). It's more a case of standing back and seeing if, as written,  the issues are formulated "right" for the mission we have, when one reads the text. One is making the cases for the voters to consider. In general, it's the opportunity to apply a general set of smell tests given the mission and the WG charter, vs rehash of the WG's deliberations over wording.

But, I don't even have a membership in OpenID (or therefore a vote). For me, something smells right about a forum focused on a UCI mission when, despite that, the process has built in a voice for the likes of me, the general public.

From: Paul Madsen [mailto:paulmadsen at rogers.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 7:36 AM
To: Peter Williams
Cc: general at openid.net
Subject: [SPAM]Re: [SPAM]Re: [OpenID] PAPE Specification Review Period Commencing

Peter, to be honest I myself was unaware of all the subtle undertones of my seemingly simple request for line numbers but, now that you have hilited them for me, I'm actually a little disappointed in myself to be part of such political maneuvers.

paul

p.s. In my innocence, I had thought that line numbers would actually enable open discussion on the lists. Again, I apologize for my naivete.

Peter Williams wrote:
I don't believe in lines for  email-based standards processes; on this I like the way IETF does it.

There is a wider issue, beyond simple citation by line numbers, in MY view. Their lack forces people to argue the issues (ad nauseam) in their own words. This has a nice side effect of teaching the passive listeners, too. In general, all this promotes transparency, is inclusive, and puts barriers into the adoption of "expert culture". It does have a downside: email overload.

Standardization can quickly become backroom deals, which favors folks with access, who have funds for travel and conferences, or who belong to particular other Boards, trading groups or investment funds. In some forums, that is the prevailing culture (and I don't belong, there ). In other forums, with grassroots-based missions (like UCI), the process often entails design that retains the grassroots focus.

When the passion of the argument is evident, and when viewing the language use and phrasing of the arguer over time, you can typically see from which constituency they hail. At that point, you can look on at the consensus of constituencies and gauge the social value of the standardization of the market.

From: general-bounces at openid.net<mailto:general-bounces at openid.net> [mailto:general-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Paul Madsen
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 6:19 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: specs at openid.net<mailto:specs at openid.net>; general at openid.net<mailto:general at openid.net>
Subject: [SPAM]Re: [OpenID] PAPE Specification Review Period Commencing

Hi Mike, if there were an official line numbered version, it would enable people providing comments against specific lines

Or is there another preferred mechanism for feedback?

Thanks

Paul

Mike Jones wrote:
The OpenID Provider Authentication Policy Extension (PAPE) Working Group recommends approval of PAPE Draft 7 as an OpenID Specification.  The draft is available at these locations:
http://openid.net/specs/openid-provider-authentication-policy-extension-1_0-07.html
http://openid.net/specs/openid-provider-authentication-policy-extension-1_0-07.txt

This note starts the 60 day public review period for the specification draft in accordance with the OpenID Foundation IPR policies and procedures.  This review period will end on Sunday, December 21st.  Unless issues are identified during the review that the working group believes must be addressed by revising the draft, this review period will be followed by a seven day voting period during which OpenID Foundation members will vote on whether to approve this draft as an OpenID Specification.

As background, the proposal to create the working group, which the membership approved, is available at http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2008-May/002323.html.  The specifications council report on the creation of the working group is available at http://openid.net/pipermail/specs/2008-May/002326.html.

                                                -- Mike

________________________________

_______________________________________________

specs mailing list

specs at openid.net<mailto:specs at openid.net>

http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs

________________________________

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1739 - Release Date: 22/10/2008 7:23 AM

--
[cid:image001.gif at 01C934E6.BE420550]<http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/blogspot/gMwy/%7E6/1>

________________________________

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1741 - Release Date: 23/10/2008 7:54 AM

--
[cid:image002.gif at 01C934E6.BE420550]<http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/blogspot/gMwy/%7E6/1>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20081023/f0cdaacd/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 8035 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20081023/f0cdaacd/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 8599 bytes
Desc: image002.gif
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20081023/f0cdaacd/attachment-0003.gif>