Great, I'll take a look at it before next week. I also am really sorry I wasn't able to make the call today.<br><br>Unfortunately neither the 22nd nor 23rd work for me next week, but I am free all day the 21st or have pockets of free time Monday or Tuesday. In the past, using something like Doodle.com has worked well for this sort of planning.<br>
<br>--David<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Drummond Reed <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net">drummond.reed@cordance.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
[resending to the list because I wasn't a member - am now]<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Drummond Reed<br>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:55 PM<br>
To: 'Tatsuki Sakushima'; <a href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a><br>
Cc: David Recordon; John Bradley; <a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a>; Robert Ott; Michael<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">Graves; Josh Hoyt; Nat Sakimura; Henrik Biering; Nat Sakimura; 山口徹<br>
Subject: RE: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group<br>
<br>
Specs Council members:<br>
<br>
I want to second this request by Tatsuki. There may not have been enough<br>
notice for the first call today, but next week's call is a week away, which<br>
should be sufficient notice for everyone.<br>
<br>
Secondly, the proposers took the time on the call today to carefully review<br>
and edit the charter on the wiki to narrow scope as much as possible and<br>
make this a nice tight proposal -- a single spec that will do something<br>
highly useful on top of OpenID AN and AX.<br>
<br>
I personally believe it now meets every criteria that the Specs Council is<br>
charged with reviewing. It is of course possible that the final<br>
specification will not receive the endorsement of the OpenID community at<br>
large, and that's fine -- that's the job of a final community vote. But<br>
given the breadth and experience of the proposers of this work, its clear<br>
focus, its composability, and the value this has to the segment of the<br>
community proposing it, I cannot imagine a reason at this point that the<br>
Specs Council would not approve formation of this workgroup.<br>
<br>
I also believe it's important for the Specs Council to act in a timely<br>
manner on these requests or else it becomes not just a drag on WG efforts<br>
but a reflection of the inability of the OpenID community to foster and<br>
promote innovation -- not something I think any of us want to see associated<br>
with OpenID.<br>
<br>
If you can't make the call next week, please read the updated charter and<br>
post any remaining concerns you may have ASAP so that the proposers have<br>
time to address them. Even better, if you are now satisfied, please post<br>
that view so we can drive to closure next Thursday.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
=Drummond<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Tatsuki Sakushima [mailto:<a href="mailto:tatsuki@nri.com">tatsuki@nri.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:05 PM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a><br>
> Cc: David Recordon; John Bradley; <a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a>; Robert Ott; Michael<br>
> Graves; Josh Hoyt; Nat Sakimura; Drummond Reed; Henrik Biering; Nat<br>
> Sakimura; 山口徹<br>
> Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX working group<br>
><br>
> Dear the Specifications Council members (especially David and Mike) and<br>
> the proposers of the CX WG,<br>
><br>
> Upon the request by David, I re-schedule this teleconference to the next<br>
> week.<br>
> Please reply this message and specify the option that you prefer. Based<br>
> on replies from all participants who intend to join, I'll set up a<br>
> conference bridge and email them the information.<br>
><br>
> I suggest the following schedules as candidate dates:<br>
><br>
> 1) 4:00pm on 1/22(PST)<br>
> 12:00am on 1/22(GMT)<br>
> 9:00am on 1/23(JST)<br>
><br>
> 2) 2:00pm on 1/23(PST)<br>
> 10:00pm on 1/23(GMT)<br>
> 7:00am on 1/24(JST)<br>
><br>
> In the OIDFSC mailing list, David already stated and explained concerns<br>
> about the previous charter submitted by Nat:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000045.html" target="_blank">http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000045.html</a><br>
> <a href="http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000046.html" target="_blank">http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000046.html</a><br>
> <a href="http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000027.html" target="_blank">http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-December/000027.html</a><br>
><br>
> The group of the proposers(Nat, Drummond, John, Henrik and Tatsuki)<br>
> gathered today to<br>
> discuss how to change the charter that does hopefully eliminate the<br>
> concerns mentioned in<br>
> the messages from Mike and David. The updated version is on the same wiki<br>
> page:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1" target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1</a><br>
><br>
> Please take another look at it before the teleconference and provide us<br>
> feedbacks<br>
> so that we can discuss about the new charter.<br>
><br>
> If you have any comments or concerns about scheduling and so forth, please<br>
> let me know.<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
> Tatsuki<br>
><br>
> Tatsuki Sakushima<br>
> NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.<br>
><br>
> (1/15/09 2:50 PM), David Recordon wrote:<br>
> > Hi Tatsuki,<br>
> > I'm really sorry but it turns out that I must have mixed up my days when<br>
> > looking at the times yesterday. I have a two hour meeting at 3pm today.<br>
> ><br>
> > Is it possible to try to plan this call more than a day in advance for<br>
> > next week?<br>
> ><br>
> > Sorry,<br>
> > --David<br>
> ><br>
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Tatsuki Sakushima <<a href="mailto:tatsuki@nri.com">tatsuki@nri.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:tatsuki@nri.com">tatsuki@nri.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hello,<br>
> ><br>
> > David and Mike Jones from the spec council responded for this<br>
> > invitation.<br>
> > David can join a conference call on the 1) slot, so I'd like<br>
> schedule<br>
> > a call on the date below:<br>
> ><br>
> > Date: Thursday, 15 January 2009 USA<br>
> > Time: 3:05PM - 4:05AM(PST)<br>
> > 11:05PM on 1/15(GMT)<br>
> > 8:05PM on 1/16(JST)<br>
> ><br>
> > TO ACCESS THE AUDIO CONFERENCE:<br>
> > Dial In Number: 1 (605) 475-4333<br>
> > Access Code: 199834<br>
> ><br>
> > From the proposers side, I confirmed that Nat, Drummond, John,<br>
> > and I can join. Unfortunately Mike Graves and Henrik cannot join<br>
> > because both of them are not available on the 1) slot but on the 2).<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Best,<br>
> > Tatsuki<br>
> ><br>
> > Tatsuki Sakushima<br>
> > NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > (1/14/09 1:59 PM), Tatsuki Sakushima wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Dear all,<br>
> ><br>
> > > I suggest the following schedules as candidate dates:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > 1) 2:00pm on 1/15(PST)<br>
> > > 10:00pm on 1/15(GMT)<br>
> > > 7:00am on 1/16(JST)<br>
> ><br>
> > On Thursday, there is a XRI TC telecon that many of us join.<br>
> > Therefore, I suggested a hour moved back on 1). The new schedule<br>
> > is below:<br>
> ><br>
> > 1) 3:00pm on 1/15(PST)<br>
> > 11:00pm on 1/15(GMT)<br>
> > 8:00am on 1/16(JST)<br>
> ><br>
> > Sorry for members in Europe. I might be hard to join it at this<br>
> > hour.<br>
> ><br>
> > Best,<br>
> > Tatsuki<br>
> ><br>
> > Tatsuki Sakushima<br>
> > NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.<br>
> > TEL:(650)638-7258<br>
> > SkypeIn:(650)209-4811<br>
> ><br>
> > (1/14/09 1:45 PM), Tatsuki Sakushima wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > (The options of the schedules have the same number. I send<br>
> the<br>
> > collection and please discard the previous one.)<br>
> ><br>
> > Dear the Specifications Council members (especially David<br>
> > and Mike) and<br>
> > the proposers of the CX WG,<br>
> ><br>
> > Upon the request of scheduling a call by Nat, I'd like to<br>
> > invite all the<br>
> > members of the spec council and the CX WG proposers to a<br>
> > teleconference<br>
> > to discuss how to solve the charter clarification and scope<br>
> > concerns<br>
> > pointed out by the spec council.<br>
> ><br>
> > I suggest the following schedules as candidate dates:<br>
> ><br>
> > 1) 2:00pm on 1/15(PST)<br>
> > 10:00pm on 1/15(GMT)<br>
> > 7:00am on 1/16(JST)<br>
> ><br>
> > 2) 2:00pm on 1/16(PST)<br>
> > 10:00pm on 1/16(GMT)<br>
> > 7:00am on 1/17(JST)<br>
> ><br>
> > Please reply this message and specify the option that you<br>
> > prefer. Based<br>
> > on replies from all participants who intend to join, I'll<br>
> > set up a<br>
> > conference bridge and email them the information.<br>
> ><br>
> > In the OIDFSC mailing list, David already stated and<br>
> > explained concerns<br>
> > about the previous charter submitted by Nat:<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-" target="_blank">http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-</a><br>
> December/000045.html<br>
> > <a href="http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-" target="_blank">http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-</a><br>
> December/000046.html<br>
> > <a href="http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-" target="_blank">http://openid.net/pipermail/specs-council/2008-</a><br>
> December/000027.html<br>
> ><br>
> > I think that the goal of this telecon is:<br>
> ><br>
> > a) For the proposers to clarify points of concerns raised by<br>
> > the council<br>
> > and explain intentions of the WG.<br>
> > b) For the spec council to provide concrete suggestions to<br>
> > make the<br>
> > charter comfortable and reasonable to the spec council and<br>
> > the community .<br>
> ><br>
> > If you have any comments or concerns on this message, please<br>
> > let me know.<br>
> ><br>
> > Best,<br>
> > Tatsuki<br>
> ><br>
> > Tatsuki Sakushima<br>
> > NRI Pacific - Nomura Research Institute America, Inc.<br>
> ><br>
> > (1/13/09 12:15 AM), Nat Sakimura wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Tatsuki,<br>
> ><br>
> > Could you kindly set-up a followup call, please?<br>
> ><br>
> > In the mean time though, I would like to ask spec<br>
> > council members for the response towards the answers<br>
> > given by the proposers to your concerns. Any concrete<br>
> > suggestion to make it acceptable to the spec council is<br>
> > also welcome. It's a wiki, after all.<br>
> ><br>
> > As to the "community support", it would probably depend<br>
> > on what "community".<br>
> > The proposers are probably talking of higher value<br>
> > transaction users, and if we do it in timely manner, I<br>
> > am pretty confident that it will have some traction, but<br>
> > it needs to happen fast. If we take too much time, the<br>
> > opportunity will go away from OpenID.<br>
> ><br>
> > =nat<br>
> ><br>
> > 2009/1/1 Drummond Reed <<a href="mailto:Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net">Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net">Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net">Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net">Drummond.Reed@parityinc.net</a>>>><br>
> ><br>
> > David,<br>
> ><br>
> > First, I agree with Henrik's comments (see his<br>
> > separate email).<br>
> > Second, to say, "I do not believe that it currently<br>
> > has sufficient<br>
> > support within the OpenID community to succeed", did<br>
> > you see the<br>
> > list of proposers for this workgroup?<br>
> ><br>
> > * Drummond Reed, <a href="mailto:drummond.reed@parity.com">drummond.reed@parity.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:drummond.reed@parity.com">drummond.reed@parity.com</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:drummond.reed@parity.com">drummond.reed@parity.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:drummond.reed@parity.com">drummond.reed@parity.com</a>>>,<br>
> > Cordance/Parity/OASIS (U.S.A)<br>
> > * Henrik Biering, <a href="mailto:hb@netamia.com">hb@netamia.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:hb@netamia.com">hb@netamia.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:hb@netamia.com">hb@netamia.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:hb@netamia.com">hb@netamia.com</a>>>,<br>
> > Netamia (Denmark)<br>
> > * Hideki Nara, <a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a>>>,<br>
> > Tact Communications (Japan)<br>
> > * John Bradeley, <a href="mailto:jbradley@mac.com">jbradley@mac.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:jbradley@mac.com">jbradley@mac.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jbradley@mac.com">jbradley@mac.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:jbradley@mac.com">jbradley@mac.com</a>>>,<br>
> > OASIS IDTrust Member Section (Canada)<br>
> > * Mike Graves, <a href="mailto:mgraves@janrain.com">mgraves@janrain.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:mgraves@janrain.com">mgraves@janrain.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mgraves@janrain.com">mgraves@janrain.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:mgraves@janrain.com">mgraves@janrain.com</a>>>,<br>
> > JanRain, Inc. (U.S.A.)<br>
> > * Nat Sakimura, <a href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>>>, Nomura Research<br>
> Institute,<br>
> > Ltd.(Japan)<br>
> > * Robert Ott, <a href="mailto:robert.ott@clavid.com">robert.ott@clavid.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:robert.ott@clavid.com">robert.ott@clavid.com</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:robert.ott@clavid.com">robert.ott@clavid.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:robert.ott@clavid.com">robert.ott@clavid.com</a>>>, Clavid (Switzerland)<br>
> > * Tatsuki Sakushima, <a href="mailto:tatsuki@nri.com">tatsuki@nri.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:tatsuki@nri.com">tatsuki@nri.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:tatsuki@nri.com">tatsuki@nri.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:tatsuki@nri.com">tatsuki@nri.com</a>>>,<br>
> > NRI America, Inc. (U.S.A.)<br>
> > * Toru Yamaguchi, <a href="mailto:trymch@gmail.com">trymch@gmail.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:trymch@gmail.com">trymch@gmail.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:trymch@gmail.com">trymch@gmail.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:trymch@gmail.com">trymch@gmail.com</a>>>,<br>
> > Cybozu Labs (Japan)<br>
> ><br>
> > In short, my first reaction to reading your email was<br>
> > to think,<br>
> > "Wow, here it is, the first example of OpenID turning<br>
> > into W3C and<br>
> > IETF and every other standards organization that<br>
> > turns into a small<br>
> > group of insiders trying to control innovation!"<br>
> ><br>
> > Of course I think you, more than almost anyone,<br>
> > can appreciate the<br>
> > irony of that thought - I believe it was to avoid<br>
> > that very<br>
> > situation that the OIDF was created, no?<br>
> ><br>
> > So if we DON'T want that to happen, I think what<br>
> > we need to do ASAP<br>
> > is turn this into a constructive dialog between the<br>
> > proposers of<br>
> > this Working Group and the Specs Council about how<br>
> > the charter might<br>
> > be amended to addess some of your concerns. (I'm not<br>
> > commenting yet<br>
> > on your specific concerns, other than to say that I<br>
> > agree with some<br>
> > and not with others.)<br>
> ><br>
> > I suspect email is going to be much too slow for<br>
> > such a dialog, so I<br>
> > would suggest that Nat and Tatksuki set up a telecon<br>
> > between the<br>
> > Working Group proposers and the Specs Council<br>
> > members. I would also<br>
> > suggest that before such a telecon, the Specs Council<br>
> > get together<br>
> > and collectively list their issues with the Charter<br>
> > on the Working<br>
> > Group Charter page. I have added a section for this<br>
> > purpose:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> <a href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1#cSpecification" target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1#cSpecification</a><br>
> CouncilIssues<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > It may be that all the Specs Council members<br>
> > agree with your four<br>
> > points below, in which case you can just wholesale<br>
> > copy them into<br>
> > the wiki page. However it is very important that the<br>
> > Specs Council<br>
> > come to it's own consensus about the issues it has<br>
> > with the charter,<br>
> > because without that, the WG proposers have no hope<br>
> > of addressing<br>
> > these issues, either with counterarguments or with<br>
> > potential amendments.<br>
> ><br>
> > Listing the issues there also enables us to have<br>
> > a more focused<br>
> > discussion than email alone by using comments<br>
> > directly on the wiki page.<br>
> ><br>
> > =Drummond<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > -------------------------------------------------------<br>
> -----------------<br>
> ><br>
> > *From:* David Recordon [mailto:<a href="mailto:recordond@gmail.com">recordond@gmail.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:recordond@gmail.com">recordond@gmail.com</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:recordond@gmail.com">recordond@gmail.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:recordond@gmail.com">recordond@gmail.com</a>>>]<br>
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:33 AM<br>
> > *To:* Nat Sakimura<br>
> > *Cc:* <a href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:specs-council@openid.net">specs-council@openid.net</a>>>;<br>
> > Josh Hoyt; Tatsuki Sakushima; John Bradley;<br>
> > <a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp">hdknr@ic-tact.co.jp</a>>>; Robert Ott; Michael<br>
> > Graves; Henrik<br>
> > Biering; Drummond Reed; Nat Sakimura; 山口徹<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > *Subject:* Re: [OIDFSC] FW: Proposal to create the TX<br>
> > working group<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Nat,<br>
> ><br>
> > I read Josh's email as agreeing with Mike's statement<br>
> of:<br>
> ><br>
> > The OpenID Specifications Council recommends that<br>
> > members reject<br>
> > this proposal to create a working group because the<br>
> > charter is<br>
> > excessively broad, it seems to propose the creation<br>
> > of new<br>
> > mechanisms that unnecessarily create new ways to do<br>
> > accomplish<br>
> > existing tasks, such as digital signatures, and it<br>
> > the proposal is<br>
> > not sufficiently clear on whether it builds upon<br>
> > existing mechanisms<br>
> > such as AX 1.0 in a compatible manner, or whether it<br>
> > requires<br>
> > breaking changes to these underlying protocols.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > While you have clarified that you don't intend to<br>
> > create a new XML<br>
> > signature mechanism, OAuth describes a mechanism to<br>
> > use public keys<br>
> > to sign these sorts of parameters. Signatures aside,<br>
> > as Mike said<br>
> > other aspects of the charter seem quite broad and it<br>
> > is unclear how<br>
> > it will build upon AX 1.0 and other underlying<br>
> > existing OpenID<br>
> > technologies.<br>
> ><br>
> > Given the draft charter at<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> <a href="http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1" target="_blank">http://wiki.openid.net/Working_Groups%3AContract_Exchange_1</a>:<br>
> > 1) The purpose of producing a series of extensions<br>
> > seems too broad. OpenID was born on the idea of<br>
> > doing one simple thing and we've seen<br>
> > success with OpenID and related technologies when<br>
> > they are made up<br>
> > of small pieces loosely joined. OpenID<br>
> > Authentication 2.0 broke<br>
> > this rule in some areas and we're now seeing the<br>
> > repercussions of<br>
> > doing so.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2) In what jurisdictions are these contracts legally<br>
> > binding? Is<br>
> > "arbitrary parties to create and exchange a<br>
> > mutually-digitally-signed legally binding 'contract'"<br>
> > a justifiable<br>
> > statement or should it be toned down? It should also<br>
> > be kept in<br>
> > mind that since OpenID's creation it has been very<br>
> > clear that OpenID<br>
> > does not provide trust, but rather trust can be built<br>
> > on top of<br>
> > identity. I'm not saying that OpenID should never<br>
> > deal with trust,<br>
> > just trying to understand if this Working Group<br>
> > intends to change<br>
> > how OpenID currently does not create this form of<br>
> trust.<br>
> ><br>
> > 3) The purpose says that the Working Group intends to<br>
> > possibly<br>
> > extend AX and create a series of specifications. It<br>
> > does not seem<br>
> > prudent to give a Working Group the ability to<br>
> > arbitrarily extend an<br>
> > existing extension or create an unlimited number of<br>
> > specifications.<br>
> ><br>
> > 4) The Scope section is still not clear as to what<br>
> > the Working Group<br>
> > will actually be producing. I would prefer to see<br>
> > the section<br>
> > rewritten, maybe mimicking the structure currently<br>
> > being considered<br>
> > for the specification.<br>
> ><br>
> > As to if you wish to force this proposal forward, I<br>
> > do not believe<br>
> > that it currently has sufficient support within the<br>
> > OpenID community<br>
> > to succeed and that its broad scope contravenes the<br>
> > community's<br>
> > purpose. This is why I'm really hoping that the<br>
> > proposal can be<br>
> > refined to something which will be successful that a<br>
> > broad community<br>
> > can get behind!<br>
> ><br>
> > --David<br>
> ><br>
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Nat Sakimura<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com">sakimura@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com">sakimura@gmail.com</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com">sakimura@gmail.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:sakimura@gmail.com">sakimura@gmail.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Josh,<br>
> > To which statement did you agree?<br>
> ><br>
> > There has been a several things that has been<br>
> > pointed out, but I<br>
> > think I have answered to them.<br>
> > For example, for XML Sig, I have stated that this<br>
> > spec is not for<br>
> > XML, etc.<br>
> > For modularization, yes, that is a possibility but a<br>
> > scope needs to<br>
> > be able to cover a field that it requires, even if it<br>
> > ends up not<br>
> > covering that field.<br>
> > It is impossible to widen the scope though narrowing<br>
> > it down at a<br>
> > later date is easy.<br>
> > Unfortunately, I have not heard back any concrete<br>
> > response<br>
> > for amendments. It would be more constructive to have<br>
> > those.<br>
> > Also, if you are giving advise to the membership<br>
> > an recommendation<br>
> > for not approving it, you need to state the reasons<br>
> > concretely.<br>
> > It needs to be one of<br>
> > (a) an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to<br>
> > comply with §4.1);<br>
> > (b) a determination that the proposal contravenes<br>
> > the OpenID<br>
> > community's purpose;<br>
> > (c) a determination that the proposed WG does not<br>
> > have sufficient<br>
> > support to succeed<br>
> ><br>
> > or to deliver proposed deliverables within<br>
> > projected<br>
> > completion dates; or<br>
> > (d) a determination that the proposal is likely<br>
> > to cause legal<br>
> > liability for the OIDF or others.<br>
> > and should state why the proposal falls into one<br>
> > of the criteria<br>
> > concretely and accountably.<br>
> > Regards,<br>
> > =nat<br>
> ><br>
> > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Josh Hoyt<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:josh@janrain.com">josh@janrain.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:josh@janrain.com">josh@janrain.com</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:josh@janrain.com">josh@janrain.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:josh@janrain.com">josh@janrain.com</a>>>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Mike Jones<br>
> ><br>
> > <<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>>>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > > I realize it was Christmas week but it's been a<br>
> > week and we've<br>
> > heard nothing<br>
> > > from any of the other specs council members on<br>
> > this proposal (or<br>
> > the other<br>
> > > one as well).<br>
> ><br>
> > I agree with the statement that you made about this<br>
> > proposal.<br>
> ><br>
> > Josh<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
> > <a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/" target="_blank">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
> > <a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/" target="_blank">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>