[Openid-specs-ab] More on federation and control

[Mike Schwartz]

I wasn't going to comment any more on this, because I didn't want to 
belabor the point.

But at the same time, I want to make it clear that I don't feel like my 
issues were addressed. My actual experience was more like "crickets 
chirping" on federation. The responses were so meager, and few and far 
between, that it hardly qualified as any kind of discussion. I just 
stopped commenting because it seemed futile--and that says a lot, 
because I'm always up for a losing battle! Look at this one!

I still contend that the federation spec is a problematic precedent for 
the Connect WG. You have a majority of the WG participants who don't 
care about the spec. Their lack of comments is interpreted as assent. So 
if there are five people really working on a spec, and four of them 
don't agree with the editor, they can be "outvoted" (whether or not the 
vote even happens).

I think the right way to handle the federation spec would have been to 
make a sub-group for the spec (not it's own WG... that seems like too 
much). And the participants in that sub-group could have discussed the 
spec more efficiently--without wasting the time of the people who don't 
care about federation, and without wasting the federation people's time 
who don't care about all the other stuff the Connect WG does.

I wasn't going to comment any more because what's really clear is that 
the current leadership doesn't want to give the community more control. 
And maybe that's the whole point of OIDF. A standards organization that 
looks and smells like a standards organization, but is actually an 
easier place to get things done the way the editors like, without all 
the messiness of consensus and forced collaboration.

- Mike Schwartz
CEO Gluu