[OpenID] [xri-comment] My Feedback for XRD Vrsion 1.0

Fri Nov 13 17:20:12 UTC 2009

This is nothing compared to the IETF's pem-dev discussion about getting the
public to rely on the X.509 identity cert, in the decade preceding the
breakout of X.509 as a killer app (ssl 1994).

10+ years later, the weeks long flames about the "NR bit" (literally a bit
in an XRD-like format) are still memorable - as several cold-war defense
contractors postured to leverage their capital "to own" ("at all costs",
"for the safety of the nation")  the internet security layer of the era
(public key crypto).

When one is dealing with public trust this kind of open forum is necessary.
It's an indicator. How its managed tells you something about the world it
envisions for  the 10-20 year life of the anticipated infrastructure.

RPs have to believe they are not being fed spin (again). It doesn't matter
whether is government spin, corporate spin, governance spin, product release
spin, or presidential spin. The impunity of using spin itself is the enemy
of garnering the public's trust.  When puffing your services, there has to
be a line beyond which the public trust you not to go.

From: John Bradley [mailto:ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 7:46 AM
To: Brett McDowell
Cc: Santosh Rajan; Peter Williams; general at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID] [xri-comment] My Feedback for XRD Vrsion 1.0

I do intend to run once nominations open.  (If I can round up the
nominators)

I am hopping to better my previous last place finish:)  

I don't think putting moderation on the general list is appropriate.  

It is true that a small number of people dominate the conversation and
things can get overheated.

However moderation is a cure worse than the disease in this case.

However one thing we should do is establish a openID-Announce list so that
people who don't want to be overwhelmed by debates that may not be relevant
to them can still receive important announcements.

One of the large IDP's was asking this morning where the best place to make
an announcement about a proposed change (bug fix) could be made so that RP's
would see it.

I think a announce list with a higher signal to noise ratio would be a good
thing.  I can see that being reasonably moderated.   

I am happy to suffer the slings and arrows on the general list.

John B.

On 2009-11-13, at 12:28 PM, Brett McDowell wrote:

I have no intention of running for the OIDF Board in the coming election.

On Nov 13, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Santosh Rajan wrote:

Hi Brett,

You sound like a person who wants to nominate himself to the OpenID board
for the coming elections.

Am I right or wrong? If i am wrong then I have some answers to your above
post.

Regards

Santosh

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Brett McDowell <email at brettmcdowell.com>
wrote:

On Nov 12, 2009, at 11:32 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> Maybe the OpenID board should consider enforcing some basic rules of
civility and professionalism on this list.

+1

On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:14 AM, SitG Admin wrote:

> As much as I value civility, I disapprove of the authoritarian approach to
moderation. -1; community-enforced rules are more in keeping with UCI
principles, too.

+1

Those views are not mutually exclusive.  The OIDF could approve a
code-of-conduct or even just a simple "values statement" (which could be
done via an all-member ballot, it doesn't have to be top-down from the
Board).  It would serve as a tool for the community to use in its role as
enforcer of those shared values.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general at lists.openid.net
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

-- 
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general at lists.openid.net
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091113/47e44724/attachment-0001.htm>