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
