Yes I entirely agree with you. Let us see the rest of the citizens coming together on this one.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:39 PM, DeWitt Clinton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- http://hi.im/santosh
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
