Connect Work Group proposal

[Dick Hardt]

On 2010-05-21, at 4:51 PM, Martin Atkins wrote:

> On 05/21/2010 04:47 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>> 
>> 2) What is different from the v.Next efforts? If this is a different approach to the same problem, it would seem to make sense to argue the different technical merits in one WG rather then two. Why is this WG is needed in addition to the v.Next work that is starting to spin up? Many members of the community gathered at the OpenID Summit, (a meeting you helped organize David!) and the consensus was the v.Next WGs that were kicked off. If you are unhappy  with the progress there, how about putting effort into moving those along rather than starting a new WG?
>> 
> 
> I believe one important difference is that this work group aims to produce a single document encompassing the entire OpenID flow, whereas the "vNext" effort is split into two or more work groups and is thus unable to cross-pollinate nor produce a single document at the end.
> 
> Of course, that's all just OIDF bureaucracy and nothing to do with the technical stuff.

Nothing says we could not produce a single document v.Next document for the simpler use cases in v.Next. The consensus at the Summit was it made sense to break the work into a number of WGs. If that has changed, we could fold some WGs together for v.Next.