So, for example, something like
DRAFT OpenID Discovery Extension 1.0?
I am fine with it, but what about other people?
Also, I was wondering if WG and the spec is 1 to 1.
In many standardization organizations, it is not 1 to 1,
and sometimes the WG name and the spec it produces
is completely different. (e.g., SSTC and SAML).
I have got an impression that at OpenID Foundation,
it is 1 to 1 right now, but is it the right way of doing it?
(It looks like it will hinder the modularization of the specs.)
=nat
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Dick Hardt" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:11 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Smoothing the OpenID Process
I would suggest having the word DRAFT in all caps on specs that are
not approved, but enable the OpenID name to be included so that it is
clear that it is intended to be an OpenID specification, as opposed to
belonging in some other community.
-- Dick
On 19-Jan-09, at 7:30 PM, Chris Messina wrote:
I support with Martin's sentiments here.
It seems like the simple approach is not giving a spec a version
number until it's finished. It's one thing if you want to call it
Draft 1, Draft 2, etc... but an x.0 version should be reserved for
final specs, as we did with OAuth before.
Therefore, rather than it be "Resolution WG", it seems like the useful
verbiage would be "Resolution Draft X". That is, a WG distinction
seems not altogether productive if the desired outcome of such a body
is to produce specs...
I also would love to see /specs completely redone and would be willing
to volunteer to help on that. It seems that it just hasn't been done
-- not that any one is necessarily at fault.
I also support putting such content under version control, again, as
we did with the OAuth spec being hosted in Google Code.
Chris
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]>
wrote:
Thanks for your response.
I like your idea and I was always assuming it to be like that (wrt
the
"Draft") but
some people apparently see it as inadequate and that was one of the
reason
for the blockage. Starting off as just being "Resolution WG" etc.
instead of
"OpenID Resolution 1.0" seemed to be a necessary and reasonable
concession to me at the time of creating the motion.
It still is in a discussion period, so if anyone got an opinion
around this,
please speak up.
Wrt the version control, I fully agree. I do not think sorting out
http://openid.net/specs/ folder needs any Process document
amendment so we
can proceed fairly quicly.
=nat
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Martin Atkins <[email protected]
>
wrote:
Nat Sakimura wrote:
/*BE IT RESOLVED that the members of OpenID Foundation board have
agreed
to amend the OpenID process document to clarify that no draft may
claim
OpenID trademark until it is ratified to be an implementor's
draft status or
full specification status. */
This is troublesome because generally OpenID specifications are
named
simply "OpenID <What It Does>" (see: OpenID Simple Registration
Extension,
OpenID Attribute Exchange).
Having to invent another name to use while drafting the
specification
seems like a needless waste of effort.
Can it not simply be required that the drafts display prominent
boilerplate text explaining that the specification is only a
draft? It'd
also be good to get a policy in place for the expiry of unapproved
drafts so
that they go away after a period of time. For example, I would
argue that we
don't need eight historical draft versions of OpenID 2.0 on
http://openid.net/specs/ ; having it under version control and
tagging the
published drafts ought to be sufficient.
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
--
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
Open Web Advocate-at-Large
factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
