I definitely prefer option 2) as it is safer IPR-wise (it is less likely to be tainted) and more in-line with other technical standardization organizations. Also, it is more democratic and market driven.
=nat On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:23 AM, David Recordon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Nat et al,I think this discussion is really fruitful and is > identifying the issues that we have right now with the process. My point > around naming conventions was less around if the spec title has "OpenID" in > it or not at the start, but more around the bar to having "OpenID" in the > title. Today, the proposal needs to be approved by the Specs Council and > membership (with a vote designed specifically to pass to make it easy to get > started) but once this happens the bar of it becoming finalized and > continuing to be called "OpenID" is also very low. We're thus seeing the > specs council try to raise this bar at the beginning which isn't working. > This should instead be happening toward the end. This is further > complicated by the amount of mandated review placed into the process making > it take nearly a year to produce a new specification. > > I see two ways to solve this: > 1) Keep the current process for working groups but create a lighter weight > pre-process for proposals that don't yet clearly fit within the scope of > OpenID. This thus gives the specs council, community and membership a more > tangible document to review during the working group process. (In many > cases, the OpenID-OAuth hybrid spec did this just outside the pervue of the > OIDF.) > 2) Change the current process to make it easier to get started, make sure > that working groups are referred to was incubating, drafting, etc, and then > add some form of community based technology review towards the end of the > process. > > In either case, we should also address the amount of time currently > allocated for various stages of review and clarify things such as if an > implementors draft is or is not required. > > I'm thinking that a gant chart might be a useful way to look at these > process options so I'll try to put one together starting with our current > process. > > --David > > On Jan 19, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote: > > There seems to be two topics here. > > 1. Naming convention for the WG and Draft specs. > > One of the reasoning given by spec council for slowness for evaluation of > the > WGs were the Trademark issue. Specifically: > > "there are nearly no hurdles toward the end of the process to make sure > that a specification really is "OpenID". Instead, we're seeing the Specs > Council place that hurdle at the beginning." (David Recordon) > > This specific motion was made to address this concern of Specs Council. > It is upto the Specs council if either of the Chris's or Dick's proposal > addresses this concern. > > My motion will definitely remove this concern, so I proposed it like that. > > 2. WG - Specs relationship > > I believe, until now, WG - Specs relationship was one to one. > (Well, actually, there has been only one WG, which is PAPE). > > But consider something like Authentication spec. > > As a WG, it might start off as Authentication 3.0 or something, > and in the end, it might want to decompose the spec into several part > such as: > > * Discovery > * Assertion > * Authentication Protocol > * Signature > > (I am not suggesting that it should be like this, by the way.) > > OR it could decide that it should afterall be just one spec. > (This monolithicness is actually one of the good quality of OpenID Specs, > IMHO) > > At the outset, the WG may not know which is the better approach. > Limiting WG to produce only one spec is likely to tend to give bias towards > > monotlithic spec. > > As you have noted, this is not quite as pressing as the other one, > so I have not included in my motions. It probably needs more discussion, > and is not a OpenID Process issue, either, I believe. > > =nat > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Chris Messina <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I would suppose that it would look more like: >> >> OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT 1 >> OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT 2 >> OpenID Discovery Extension DRAFT etc >> >> If there were a precedent within the OIDF for needing multiple WGs on >> the same spec, it might be worth considering, but I'm not sure that >> that's a problem we're going to have in the immediate future. I could >> be wrong, but just doesn't seem like a pressing issue compared with >> other matters. >> >> Chris >> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > 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 >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > http://www.sakimura.org/en/ > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
