Ha, thanks Santosh. I tried. : ) Ultimately I'm okay with where XRD landed.
No, I personally don't believe this *needs* to be called OpenID Connect. Rather, I see this as an opportunity for the OpenID community to show its strengths by helping whatever-it-is-called Connect succeed. Would be a wasted opportunity not to, imo. -DeWitt On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Santosh Rajan <[email protected]> wrote: > I have great respect for your work DeWitt, most importantly you were > instrumental in changing the XRD format to a more Atom like like format, > even though you were not entirely successful. > > Even If I agree with all the rest of the arguments you made, are you sure > we "MUST CALL IT OPENID CONNECT?" > > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:10 PM, DeWitt Clinton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sounds like this problem is relatively easy to resolve if there is a >> consensus within the OIDF and the membership to pursue *both* Connect and >> v.Next in parallel. If so, the technical committee's role is simply to make >> both happen, and we can trust the committee, regardless of the chairs, to do >> that job well and without conflict. >> >> In other words, if we agree on the goals, then I'm not worried about the >> committees. (Or rather, if we have to stress about the committees, then we >> got the big picture parts wrong to begin with.) >> >> So ... is there a consensus to do both v.Next and Connect? >> >> My own hope is the answer is "yes!", as Connect is going to get built >> somewhere by someone no matter what -- there is too much need for it and too >> much momentum behind it for it not to happen. If the OIDF helps make that >> happen, then it could be called OpenID Connect. If not, then it will be >> called something else. Seems pretty simple, really. >> >> And I would love to see smart people, like Dick and others, thinking about >> v.Next, and thinking about revisiting the stack for the future. >> >> So I advocate yes to pursuing both paths in parallel. But I'd love to >> hear that from the OIDF leadership as well. >> >> -DeWitt >> >> >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Santosh Rajan <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I am slightly out of tune regarding this thread. My apologies. However I >>> have one related question. >>> >>> 1) I had heard about a year back that the original founders of OpenID, >>> and if I understood this correctly includes David Recordon. >>> 2) I also heard about a year back that the original founders had a veto >>> rights on the decisions made on the OpenID board. >>> 3) Can the board clarify whether I am right or wrong? >>> >>> And If I am right then my request to David recordon is that please do >>> take a more democratic stand on these matters. >>> Thank you so much >>> Santosh Rajan >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:33 PM, David Recordon <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> It seems that it was completely a misunderstanding. Given that the Board >>>> wanted us to move forward quickly, I was just trying to help make that >>>> happen. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:58 AM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> David, >>>>> >>>>> My recollection is that Dick said that being part of a decision to >>>>> direct funds to himself would be a conflict, so he recused himself from >>>>> the >>>>> vote. >>>>> >>>>> I understood Scot's reply to be that resigning from the board/committee >>>>> was not required. That the bylaws contained other mechanisms to deal >>>>> with >>>>> such a conflict. >>>>> >>>>> I am assuming that the conflict or lack there of will be dealt with as >>>>> part of the contract/SOW process. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no contract/SOW there is no conflict. >>>>> >>>>> If there is a issue with Dick remaining chair I expect the director to >>>>> inform the Committee and a new election to occur in a democratic fashion. >>>>> >>>>> The Committee can also decide to replace the chair at any time >>>>> independent of conflict recommendations from Council/ED. >>>>> >>>>> So I did consider your note a touch over eager. I do understand that >>>>> it was perhaps partially motivated by conversations I am unaware of. >>>>> >>>>> John B. >>>>> >>>>> On 2010-05-20, at 6:40 AM, David Recordon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, when I spoke with Don, Brian, and Scott after the meeting they >>>>> were all under the impression that this was the case. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I stated I had a conflict as chair of the technical committee to >>>>>> direct funds to myself from the technical committee budget. I did not >>>>>> state >>>>>> that I was stepping down as chair of the tech committee, nor did anyone >>>>>> suggest that I should. >>>>>> >>>>>> My understanding is that the technical committee was to review the >>>>>> statement of work. I predict that continuing on as chair of the technical >>>>>> committee would be beneficial in performing the work. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm disappointed that you did not discuss your proposed path before >>>>>> sending out this email. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will send out a draft SOW to the Tech Comm and schedule a call to >>>>>> discuss soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Dick >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2010-05-19, at 11:01 PM, David Recordon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > Today the Board passed a resolution directing the Executive >>>>>> Director, Chair, Technical Committee, and outside council to explore a >>>>>> contracting relationship with Dick Hardt to move the v.Next work forward. >>>>>> Dick brought up how there could be a conflict during this process given >>>>>> that >>>>>> he is the chair of the Technical Committee. So for the time being I'll >>>>>> take >>>>>> on the chair role with Joseph Smarr (who wasn't at the meeting but I >>>>>> spoke >>>>>> to a few hours ago) taking on the co-chair role. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Technical Committee, expect a followup email around starting to pull >>>>>> together a set of deliverables and timeline over the next week. The >>>>>> goal, as >>>>>> I understand it, is to either have a contract in place or a determination >>>>>> that it is unfeasible by the end of the this month. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Thanks, >>>>>> > --David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://hi.im/santosh >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > http://hi.im/santosh > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
