Who are the people in this world to decide what is "RESPECTFULL" and "DISRESPECTFULL".
"BRIAN KISSEL"? On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> wrote: > Santosh, it’s not a question of expressing your views, it’s about your > disrespectful personal attacks. We encourage healthy debate on this list, > but with respect and focusing on issues, not people. When you say things > like the following, you are not exhibiting the level of maturity and respect > expected by other participants on this list. > > > > · Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE". > > · Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public, What > Good Have you done for Google? > > · Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you were > going to join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So > don';t talk about this any more! > > · Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there nonsense > anymore?" > > You have been warned many times about your behavior on the list, and > temporarily banned from participating. You may intend no disrespect, but > the feedback I’ve gotten from others on the list is that your behavior is > unacceptable. Kindly refrain your comments to issues relevant to the group > and eliminate the disrespectful personal attacks. > > > > Cheers, > > > Brian > > *___________* > > * * > > *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>* > > CEO - JanRain, Inc. > > [email protected] > > Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502 > > 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 > > > > *Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX. > Learn more at **www.rpxnow.com* > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan > *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 6:58 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG > > > > Thank you for your warning Brian. Let me put the whole subject in > perspective once again. > > > > 1) On 14th May 2010, Eran Hammer Lahav, posted on his hueniverse blog, > about JRD. Right. The JSON version of XRD. I have been an ardent student of > OpenID/XRD/Webfinger since January 2009. Webfinger and XRD really took of > since May 2009. The moment I saw this JRD proposal by Eran on 14 May, I > realized that something was up. I could not figure what was up at that > moment. I mean why is Eran supporting JRD today after shouting on all roof > tops about XRD? > > > > 2) Sure enough, within the next 24-48 hrs David Recordon land the > "OpenID.Connect" proposal here on this forum. Which happens to support JRD, > > > > 3) A bunch of Googlers chime in support of this proposal within hours. > > > > 4) And we have all read what has happened after that in these forums. > > > > All the points I have made above are well documented, in the posts of > hueniverse, Openid board, and OpenID specs. > > > > Brian, as the chairman of the OpenID Board, I humbly request you to allow > me to express my views in public. I want the freedom to express my views in > public. Can I have that freedom? If you as chairman of the OpenID board have > conditions for allowing such freedom, please let me know, and I shall abide > by your conditions. > > On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Santosh, these personal attacks are inappropriate for this forum as you > have been notified many times in the past. Please desist or be prepared to > lose the privilege of participating in the dialog. > > > > Cheers, > > > Brian > > *___________* > > * * > > *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>* > > CEO - JanRain, Inc. > > [email protected] > > Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502 > > 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 > > > > *Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX. > Learn more at **www.rpxnow.com* > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan > *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 1:51 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG > > > > Questions/answers inline > > On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Messina <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Santosh Rajan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > > > After reading your post below. I have a couple of questions. > > > > 1) Instead of calling, the next version of OpenID, as suggested by you > earlier "OpenID.Connect". Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE". That would > be more appropriate. Do you agree? > > > > No, I don't agree. > > > > > > I am glad you don't agree. We are both in agreement on this one point. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Who are you working for? If I remember correctly, you are currently > employed by Google? > > > > I am employed by Google and thus I receive a paycheck from Google. > > > > Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public, What Good Have > you done for Google? > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I was elected to serve the OpenID Foundation board by the > community for a two year term. > > > > Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you were going to > join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So don';t talk > about this any more! > > > > > > > > > > > > My role on the board is as an advocate for the community and its interests. > If I were put on the board to fill Google's seat, I would advocate for > Google's position. I hope that members of the OpenID community have the > ability to distinguish between both entities, and when I'm speaking at the > behest of one or the other. > > > > > > Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there nonsense anymore?" > > > > > > > > If I can keep these two sets of interests separate — sometimes aligned, > sometimes not — I hope others can as well. > > > > > > Yeah right! "Your others have already gone into hiding!" > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Chris Messina <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > OAuth 2.0 does NOT solve the problems that OpenID was trying to solve. It > is NOT a distributed identity system. If you can make discovery work for > OAuth, then you can make it work for OpenID. OAuth implementations today do > NOT have discovery. > > > > Perhaps standards groups like the OpenID Foundation operate in a slightly > different marketplace-twilight zone, but I'm curious how we define our > customers — and how that definition should or shouldn't affect the work that > gets done. > > > > For example, Luke — representing Facebook — is saying that there's not been > sufficient adoption of OpenID over the past several years, and for the use > cases that I've cared most about, I would agree with that assessment. It is > not the case that OpenID hasn't been adopted — but that OpenID simply isn't > the only game in town anymore, and that the market demand in the consumer > space was unearthed and capitalized on by the likes of Facebook and Twitter, > and NOT the many other OpenID providers. > > > > Facebook is saying that they want to work through the OpenID Foundation to > help develop a technology solution that is more like what the market has > already adopted — but that adds in discovery to aid in decentralizing > identity, at least in a very primitive way (hence the Connect proposal). > > > > Dick, you seem to be saying that OAuth is not a distributed identity > system, but that if discovery were defined for it (along with > auto-registration of clients), then it would be useful as a distributed > identity technology. Am I getting that right? > > > > I think the divide here comes down to whether the OIDF should be focused on > what the market demands and is willing to adopt *today*, or instead on the > set of technologies that may enable distributed identity solutions > *tomorrow*. > > > > My fear — which has been consistent — is that if we don't respond to the > market's desires today (represented by Facebook, Yahoo, and other's > comments) then we won't be part of the conversation when potential adopters > are looking for better solutions tomorrow. > > > > So, if we spin out the Connect proposal — or cause it so much friction that > it can't effectively proceed here — then by the time the ill-named v.Next > proposal is completed (with all of the "necessary" use cases addressed), the > world may have moved on, and the Foundation proven irrelevant. I don't see > it as an all-or-nothing situation, but as others have said, there will be an > identity piece baked into OAuth sooner than later, and if that work doesn't > happen within the OIDF, we're going to be pitching a product that no one has > really said that they want, or are currently signing up to implement, based > on the lack of clarity in the description of v.Next today, whereas there are > already working prototypes of the Connect proposal in the wild. > > > > There needs to be a bridge between OpenID 2.0 — which is a perfectly fine > solution for many use cases today — and the next iterations of OpenID 2.x > and beyond. > > > > Chris > > > > -- Dick > > > On 2010-06-04, at 11:14 PM, Luke Shepard wrote: > > > We have complained for years in the OpenID community that we don't see > enough adoption. That we don't have a great mobile story. That the spec is > too complicated. That relying parties can't get the attributes they want. > The fact is that most of the major identity providers have adopted or are > planning to adopt OAuth 2.0 largely because it solves many of those > problems. > > > > I believe in OpenID. I believe in the concept of a decentralized > identity. I think the OpenID Foundation, by bringing together myriad > companies and individuals, is in a unique position to really help bring > cohesive, standardized technology - but only if it responds to the realities > of the marketplace. > > > > My main goal is to see the next generation of identity technology built. > A secondary goal is that it is built within the OpenID Foundation. I don't > know what the technology will look like exactly - both Nat's and David's > proposals have merit. I think the best way to figure out the tech is to > implement it, experiment, and try it out in production. I think the wrong > way to make it happen is to bicker over the exact wording of the working > group before it's even started. > > > > As Allen said, this work will happen - must happen. The main question to > the OpenID Foundation is whether it wants to encourage innovation or drift > into irrelevance. > > > > On Jun 4, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: > > > >> Hi Allen > >> > >> Thanks for the response. My point in this email is that at the end of > the meeting, it was agreed that Connect was not going to be done in the > OIDF, which means the WG proposal would be withdrawn. With you and David > agreeing on the specs council call that Connect should be a WG, that goes > counter to what we had concluded at the meeting. > >> > >> Note that I was not the one to suggest that Connect was not going to be > in the OIDF, but since that was what everyone had agreed to, there was no > point in talking about how it would be done in the OIDF. > >> > >> -- Dick > >> > >> > >> On 2010-06-04, at 8:58 PM, Allen Tom wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Hi Dick, > >>> > >>> Although I might not have expressed this as strongly as I should have > last Friday, I believe that we should be working on an identity layer for > OAuth2 within the OIDF. > >>> > >>> Yahoo will definitely be implementing this, and I would expect that all > other OAuth SPs to do the same. It would definitely simplify things if we > could have a single standard interface that can do everything that OpenID > 2.0 +AX+Hybrid can do today, and also be extensible to be used for future > services and even for OP specific proprietary APIs as well. > >>> > >>> I expect that an OAuth based identity layer would be widely implemented > and far more widely used than OpenID, making OpenID largely irrelevant. > Therefore, I think it's in the OIDFs best interest to back this imitative. > >>> > >>> However, on Friday, I did get the impression that there is not > sufficent consensus to move forward. If that's still the case, then there's > no point forcing the issue. The work is going to get done either way. > >>> > >>> Hope that clarifies things > >>> Allen > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> David, Chris, Joseph, Allen > >>>> > >>>> When we met last Friday to discuss how Connect and v.Next would work > together, the four of you had agreed that it would be best doing the Connect > work outside the OIDF. I had come to the meeting to talk about how we would > merge or align the efforts, but since there was consensus to do it outside, > we did not discuss. > >>>> > >>>> From actions I have seen today, it seems that there has been a change > since then and that you are planning on working on Connect per the original > charter. As emailed separately, I have concerns with the charter as drafted. > >>>> > >>>> I am very disappointed that I learn about your change in mind by > seeing postings on public mailing lists. > >>>> > >>>> WTF? > >>>> > >>>> -- Dick > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> board mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > board mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > > > > -- > Chris Messina > Open Web Advocate, Google > > Personal: http://factoryjoe.com > Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina > ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina > > This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > > > -- > http://hi.im/santosh > > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > > > > -- > Chris Messina > Open Web Advocate, Google > > Personal: http://factoryjoe.com > Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina > ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina > > This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private > > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > > > > -- > http://hi.im/santosh > > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > > > > -- > http://hi.im/santosh > > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > -- http://hi.im/santosh
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
