I agree that we need to keep the branding option.

The WG name is reflected in the mailing list address and charter name.  
I suspect changing may require a recharter and new mailing list.   Mike is the 
expert on that.

I suppose the other option is to move everything to the connect WG.  

The one thing I am relatively sure of is that the marketing name won't be 
openID Artifact Binding.

I have tried explaining openID ABC as "Attribute Based Credentials"  or simple 
as ABC.  

John B.
On 2011-02-21, at 9:25 PM, Chris Messina wrote:

> +1 to closing them.
> 
> The one concern I'd have (as usual) is with branding. If Connect is 'merging 
> into" A/B, I presume that there won't be a WG with "Connect" in the name 
> anymore. This may not be appear to be a big deal, but I do think that the 
> OpenID Connect brand could still have some mojo, especially in contrast to 
> Artifact Binding.
> 
> Is it possible for the A/B WG to reflect that it essentially represents the 
> continuation of the Connect WG in its name?
> 
> Chris
> 
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 2:29 PM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 as long as we are clear Connect is just merging with AB, and the final 
> name or version is TBA.
> 
> John B.
> 
> On 2011-02-21, at 6:57 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:
> 
>> + 1 for the closing of this groups
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 13:53, Mike Jones <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> At the latest OpenID board meeting, I took the action item to have the 
>> specifications close down inactive working groups.  This is to help 
>> eliminate confusion among the members about where work is occurring and 
>> focus people’s efforts on the active working groups.
>> 
>>  
>> Per section 4.4 of the OpenID process document, “The Specifications Council 
>> may recommend closure of a WG at any time that the WG has not had Minimum 
>> Membership for six consecutive months at the time of closure, and such 
>> recommendation will promptly be submitted to a vote of the OIDF membership, 
>> in accordance with the voting procedures in §3.”  “Minimum Membership” is 
>> defined in section 1.6 as “five contributors”.
>> 
>>  
>> It’s clear that all of these working groups meet this criteria in terms of 
>> lack of participation by 5 members within the last 6 months:
>> 
>> ·         v.Next Core
>> 
>> ·         v.Next Discovery
>> 
>> ·         v.Next Attributes
>> 
>> ·         v.Next Certification
>> 
>> ·         v.Next User Experience
>> 
>>  
>> Also, given the consensus to merge the Connect work into the Artifact 
>> Binding work, I would argue that we should close the Connect working group 
>> at the same time, so that it’s clear that people wanting to contribute to it 
>> should join the Artifact Binding working group, where the work is actually 
>> proceeding.  Formally, there have been 7 contributors on the Connect working 
>> group list in the last 6 months:  Breno de Medeiros, Chris Messina, Chuck 
>> Mortimore, David Recordon, John Bradley, Joseph Smarr, and Nat Sakimura.  
>> The most recent contribution was 11/3/10.  So we could either wait a few 
>> months to close it, or if three of the above contributors agree that it 
>> should be closed, I believe we could proceed with the membership vote to 
>> close the working group at the same time.  (I’d rather not have two 
>> membership votes closing working groups.)
>> 
>>  
>> So after a discussion period, unless people form consensus around a 
>> different course of action, I’m going to propose a specs council vote that 
>> we close all 6 of these working groups.
>> 
>>  
>>                                                                 Thanks all,
>> 
>>                                                                 -- Mike
>> 
>>  
>> P.S.  The present membership of the specifications council is:
>> 
>> ·         Johnny Bufu
>> 
>> ·         Breno de Medeiros
>> 
>> ·         Dick Hardt
>> 
>> ·         Mike Jones
>> 
>> ·         David Recordon
>> 
>> ·         Nat Sakimura
>> 
>> ·         Allen Tom
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> --Breno
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Chris Messina
> Open Web Advocate, Google
> 
> Website: http://chrismessina.me
> Blog: http://chrismessina.me/b
> Follow my updates: http://twitter.com/chrismessina 
> 
> This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

Reply via email to