Huh? What do you propose we call it then? Are you actually opposed to calling the project Google Code "OpenID"? Do you think that http://code.google.com/p/oauth was the wrong name for the OAuth project?
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Johannes Ernst <[email protected]> wrote: > So what's wrong with the OIDF helping to assemble an open-source project > that does all of what you say, and that has a name OTHER than OpenID? > The W3C doesn't call its browser "HTML" either. Imagine if it did. > > > > On May 30, 2009, at 14:58, Chris Messina wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Johannes Ernst <[email protected]> wrote: > >> When the OIDF was started, we explicitly decided that the OIDF would not >> maintain or endorse any particular code base. >> > > I agree that we should not endorse any codebase, but I disagree that the > foundation should not or can not provide resources, infrastructure or act as > a convening force to facilitate the development of libraries. > > The OpenID libraries could be made much more usable, lightweight and > approachable if effort and resources were put into them. The reality is that > no one is going to do this "out of the goodness of their hearts" (least of > all, without community momentum providing a different kind of incentive to > participate). > > We finally have interest from folks to move the PHP library forward, and > rather than have this work happen off to the side, I would really like to > see this work happen in plain view, where others will see that this work is > happening and then become interested in joining it. > > Ideally we will have a mix of board and regular members of the foundation > running the project, and maintaining resources related to the libraries. > > >> >> While that decision can of course be overturned, I think the rationale for >> it is as good today as it was back then -- we want OpenID supporters to >> agree on the spec, and compete on implementations. In my view, that is >> essential for encouraging the growth of a healthy, innovative marketplace of >> both products and ideas. >> > > I don't think that a spec alone is sufficient; you need high quality > implementations that are also interoperable, and to that end, the foundation > has an interest and responsibility to encourage the collaboration of > implementors to create interoperable and compatible implementations. > > I also agree with using market mechanisms to increase competition, but I do > not believe that competition will occur until you've created a baseline > playing field in which to compete. I do think that the popup/UI extension is > one area were we're seeing alignment and competition occur, but it is work > that is happening to fill a void that has been made manifest by all the > different (and confusing) implementations of OpenID in the wild. > > In other words, I believe that we need planes that are proven to fly before > we can expect people to build Harrier jump jets on their own. > > I think that we've made tremendous progress in the last six months on > proving the viability of OpenID in the marketplace, but I think that we have > to double-down and make it *much easier* to implement and adopt OpenID, and > to have it work well out of the box for folks who have not been involved in > this community or identity technology from the beginning. > > And that requires clean libraries and implementations that take little > fore-knowledge for granted and lead the way towards deploying a successful > implementation. > > We don't have those resources assembled today. > > >> >> There is nothing wrong in my for the foundation to encourage a vibrant >> OpenID open source project. Declaring it to be "the one and only" would be a >> big mistake, however. The naming that's proposed implies to me exactly that >> and that is worrying to me. >> > > I agree with this. And that's not what is implied or intended by hosting > the OpenID libraries on Google Code. In fact, I hope that we can even > provide pointers to (or checkouts of) competing implementations in the same > language in the repository, but document their strengths and differences in > an accessible way. > > At the same time, I think that the goal here is to bring together a great > deal of effort and might to push these libraries forward; I'm approaching > using a method that I've found successful in the past and will continue to > pursue it unless or until someone proposes an alternative and is equally > willing to seeing it through to completion. > > It isn't that my approach is the only one that will work, it's just that > it's the one that I've used successfully in the past and seems appropriate > in this context as well. > > Chris > > >> >> >> On May 29, 2009, at 18:40, Chris Messina wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Martin Atkins >> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> >>> It seems that github also satisfies all of the above requirements, with >>> the advantage of making it easier to pull changes from the individual >>> maintainer repositories due to github being designed with this in mind. >>> Github also supports multiple repositories per account, so each library can >>> have its own repository, maintainers, etc. >> >> >> Yes, but not everyone is familiar with GIT yet. SVN is much more widely >> known, I would think, in the general world of development at this time. >> >> I'm enamored by Github, but that doesn't mean that it's what everyone's >> using yet. >> >> >> (I'm also a little confused as to what the advantage is of having "a >>> central place to check out", given that the purpose of checking out is to >>> contribute changes and changes will be contributed somewhere else. What is >>> the purpose of checking out a working copy of repository other than the one >>> you want to ultimately commit to?) >>> >> >> My goal is raise the visibility of the libraries and the current home on >> OpenIDEnabled.com has failed to produce a community of active maintainers, >> from what I've seen. >> >> Perhaps it's just a matter of setting up a page at >> http://openid.net/code that's a cleaned up version of >> http://wiki.openid.net/Libraries. I could certainly start there. >> >> The purpose of checking out the latest stable version of a library (or >> even latest unstable branch) is to enable folks to run the latest code in >> their projects and then update them easily when new versions are released. >> Perhaps tarballs are sufficient, but it seems like giving different >> communities like WordPress a simple place to do an SVN checkout from would >> be valuable. >> >> Feel free to tell me I'm wrong, or to support my proposal. >> >> >>> Both the PHP library and the Perl library I maintain are already on >>> github. I'd be happy to have the libnet-openid-perl repository on my github >>> account (apparentlymart) forked into the openid account on github as long as >>> someone's going to commit to maintaining that fork. >> >> >> Unless someone steps up, it's unlikely to happen, I guess. >> >> But therein lies the rub: we have failed to develop a community of >> maintainers for the OpenID libraries and I think we're worse off for it. I'm >> attempting to get some momentum for such a community by centralizing at >> least a listing of the libraries in a familiar place that developers are >> used to seeing. >> >> GitHub doesn't provide a way to customize the homepage of a project, and >> so we need a place that is clean, approachable, well-designed and is easy >> for someone on the board (or some other dedicated community member(s)) to >> maintain. >> >> Again, I can start with creating a page on OpenID.net, but the symbolic >> achievement of having a central repository to me somehow seems important, >> and is what is motivating my desire to finally make this happen. >> Chris >> >> >> -- >> Chris Messina >> Open Web Advocate >> >> Website: http://factoryjoe.com >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina >> Facebook: http://facebook.com/chrismessina >> >> Diso Project: http://diso-project.org >> OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net >> >> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >> >> >> Johannes Ernst >> NetMesh Inc. >> >> <lid.gif> <openid.gif> http://netmesh.info/jernst >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >> >> > > > -- > Chris Messina > Open Web Advocate > > Website: http://factoryjoe.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina > Facebook: http://facebook.com/chrismessina > > Diso Project: http://diso-project.org > OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net > > This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > > > Johannes Ernst > NetMesh Inc. > > http://netmesh.info/jernst > > > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > > -- Chris Messina Open Web Advocate Website: http://factoryjoe.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina Facebook: http://facebook.com/chrismessina Diso Project: http://diso-project.org OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
<<openid.gif>>
<<lid.gif>>
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
