[OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group

[Nat Sakimura]

Hi Josh,

To which statement did you agree?

There has been a several things that has been pointed out, but I think I
have answered to them.

For example, for XML Sig, I have stated that this spec is not for XML, etc.
For modularization, yes, that is a possibility but a scope needs to be able
to cover a field that it requires, even if it ends up not covering that
field.
It is impossible to widen the scope though narrowing it down at a later date
is easy.

Unfortunately, I have not heard back any concrete response for amendments.
It would be more constructive to have those.

Also, if you are giving advise to the membership an recommendation for not
approving it, you need to state the reasons concretely.

It needs to be one of

(a)    an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with §4.1);
(b)    a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID community's
purpose;
(c)    a determination that the proposed WG does not have sufficient support
to succeed
         or to deliver proposed deliverables within projected completion
dates; or
(d)    a  determination that the proposal is likely to cause legal liability
for the OIDF or others.

and should state why the proposal falls into one of the criteria concretely
and accountably.

Regards,

=nat

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Josh Hoyt <josh at janrain.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Mike Jones
> <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > I realize it was Christmas week but it's been a week and we've heard
> nothing
> > from any of the other specs council members on this proposal (or the
> other
> > one as well).
>
> I agree with the statement that you made about this proposal.
>
> Josh
>



-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20081231/66df5fa4/attachment-0002.htm>