I have great respect for your work Dick Hardt! If anyone can bring this whole "MESSED UP" situation together, it is only you.
Also I will take up your suggestions, and desist from making any more comments on this forum.henceforth! Let us hope that you can take up this cause forward! Otherwise I am gonna come back here! HAHAHA! I can see Brian Kissel and gang cleaning there pitchforks and lickin there lips in anticipation. On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: > Santosh > > While I agree that deciding what is respectful and disrespectful is > challenging and contextual, many participants in this community find some of > your emails counter productive. > > I would find your participation more productive if you commented on the > issues rather than the people. Negative comments about people may be > interpreted as attacks -- not what I hope you are wanting to accomplish. > > If you are concerned about someone's actions, I would suggest that you > describe the action and describe what you are concerned about. If you are > concerned about what Chris Messina has done, please describe what you think > it is he has done and why that is not in the best interest of the community. > Attacking Chris and challenging him on the list is not acceptable. > > I look forward to your continued participation and hope my suggestions are > helpful. > > -- Dick > > > On 2010-06-06, at 8:50 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote: > > Who are the people in this world to decide what is "RESPECTFULL" and > "DISRESPECTFULL". > > "BRIAN KISSEL"? > > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Santosh, it’s not a question of expressing your views, it’s about your >> disrespectful personal attacks. We encourage healthy debate on this list, >> but with respect and focusing on issues, not people. When you say things >> like the following, you are not exhibiting the level of maturity and respect >> expected by other participants on this list. >> >> >> · Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE". >> >> · Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public, >> What Good Have you done for Google? >> >> · Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you >> were going to join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So >> don';t talk about this any more! >> >> · Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there >> nonsense anymore?" >> >> You have been warned many times about your behavior on the list, and >> temporarily banned from participating. You may intend no disrespect, but >> the feedback I’ve gotten from others on the list is that your behavior is >> unacceptable. Kindly refrain your comments to issues relevant to the group >> and eliminate the disrespectful personal attacks. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Brian >> >> *___________* >> >> * * >> >> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>* >> >> CEO - JanRain, Inc. >> >> [email protected] >> >> Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502 >> >> 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 >> >> >> *Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX. >> Learn more at **www.rpxnow.com* >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan >> *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 6:58 PM >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG >> >> >> >> Thank you for your warning Brian. Let me put the whole subject in >> perspective once again. >> >> >> 1) On 14th May 2010, Eran Hammer Lahav, posted on his hueniverse blog, >> about JRD. Right. The JSON version of XRD. I have been an ardent student of >> OpenID/XRD/Webfinger since January 2009. Webfinger and XRD really took of >> since May 2009. The moment I saw this JRD proposal by Eran on 14 May, I >> realized that something was up. I could not figure what was up at that >> moment. I mean why is Eran supporting JRD today after shouting on all roof >> tops about XRD? >> >> >> 2) Sure enough, within the next 24-48 hrs David Recordon land the >> "OpenID.Connect" proposal here on this forum. Which happens to support JRD, >> >> >> 3) A bunch of Googlers chime in support of this proposal within hours. >> >> >> 4) And we have all read what has happened after that in these forums. >> >> >> All the points I have made above are well documented, in the posts of >> hueniverse, Openid board, and OpenID specs. >> >> >> Brian, as the chairman of the OpenID Board, I humbly request you to allow >> me to express my views in public. I want the freedom to express my views in >> public. Can I have that freedom? If you as chairman of the OpenID board have >> conditions for allowing such freedom, please let me know, and I shall abide >> by your conditions. >> >> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Brian Kissel <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Santosh, these personal attacks are inappropriate for this forum as you >> have been notified many times in the past. Please desist or be prepared to >> lose the privilege of participating in the dialog. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Brian >> >> *___________* >> >> * * >> >> *Brian Kissel <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/10/254>* >> >> CEO - JanRain, Inc. >> >> [email protected] >> >> Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502 >> >> 519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 >> >> >> *Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX. >> Learn more at **www.rpxnow.com* >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Santosh Rajan >> *Sent:* Sunday, June 06, 2010 1:51 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [OpenID board] Connect WG >> >> >> Questions/answers inline >> >> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Messina <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Santosh Rajan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> >> After reading your post below. I have a couple of questions. >> >> >> 1) Instead of calling, the next version of OpenID, as suggested by you >> earlier "OpenID.Connect". Why don't we call it "OpenID.TWITFACE". That would >> be more appropriate. Do you agree? >> >> >> >> No, I don't agree. >> >> >> >> I am glad you don't agree. We are both in agreement on this one point. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2) Who are you working for? If I remember correctly, you are currently >> employed by Google? >> >> >> >> I am employed by Google and thus I receive a paycheck from Google. >> >> >> >> Great! Now that you are discussing your paycheck in public, What Good Have >> you done for Google? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> However, I was elected to serve the OpenID Foundation board by the >> community for a two year term. >> >> >> >> Right! So did those people who voted for you, know that you were going to >> join Google before those 2 years were up? No they didn't!. So don';t talk >> about this any more! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My role on the board is as an advocate for the community and its >> interests. If I were put on the board to fill Google's seat, I would >> advocate for Google's position. I hope that members of the OpenID community >> have the ability to distinguish between both entities, and when I'm speaking >> at the behest of one or the other. >> >> >> >> >> Do we have to take this kind of "neither here nor there nonsense anymore?" >> >> >> >> >> >> If I can keep these two sets of interests separate — sometimes aligned, >> sometimes not — I hope others can as well. >> >> >> >> >> Yeah right! "Your others have already gone into hiding!" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Chris Messina <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> OAuth 2.0 does NOT solve the problems that OpenID was trying to solve. It >> is NOT a distributed identity system. If you can make discovery work for >> OAuth, then you can make it work for OpenID. OAuth implementations today do >> NOT have discovery. >> >> >> >> Perhaps standards groups like the OpenID Foundation operate in a slightly >> different marketplace-twilight zone, but I'm curious how we define our >> customers — and how that definition should or shouldn't affect the work that >> gets done. >> >> >> For example, Luke — representing Facebook — is saying that there's not >> been sufficient adoption of OpenID over the past several years, and for the >> use cases that I've cared most about, I would agree with that assessment. It >> is not the case that OpenID hasn't been adopted — but that OpenID simply >> isn't the only game in town anymore, and that the market demand in the >> consumer space was unearthed and capitalized on by the likes of Facebook and >> Twitter, and NOT the many other OpenID providers. >> >> >> Facebook is saying that they want to work through the OpenID Foundation to >> help develop a technology solution that is more like what the market has >> already adopted — but that adds in discovery to aid in decentralizing >> identity, at least in a very primitive way (hence the Connect proposal). >> >> >> Dick, you seem to be saying that OAuth is not a distributed identity >> system, but that if discovery were defined for it (along with >> auto-registration of clients), then it would be useful as a distributed >> identity technology. Am I getting that right? >> >> >> I think the divide here comes down to whether the OIDF should be focused >> on what the market demands and is willing to adopt *today*, or instead on >> the set of technologies that may enable distributed identity solutions >> *tomorrow*. >> >> >> My fear — which has been consistent — is that if we don't respond to the >> market's desires today (represented by Facebook, Yahoo, and other's >> comments) then we won't be part of the conversation when potential adopters >> are looking for better solutions tomorrow. >> >> >> So, if we spin out the Connect proposal — or cause it so much friction >> that it can't effectively proceed here — then by the time the ill-named >> v.Next proposal is completed (with all of the "necessary" use cases >> addressed), the world may have moved on, and the Foundation proven >> irrelevant. I don't see it as an all-or-nothing situation, but as others >> have said, there will be an identity piece baked into OAuth sooner than >> later, and if that work doesn't happen within the OIDF, we're going to be >> pitching a product that no one has really said that they want, or are >> currently signing up to implement, based on the lack of clarity in the >> description of v.Next today, whereas there are already working prototypes of >> the Connect proposal in the wild. >> >> >> There needs to be a bridge between OpenID 2.0 — which is a perfectly fine >> solution for many use cases today — and the next iterations of OpenID 2.x >> and beyond. >> >> >> Chris >> >> >> -- Dick >> >> >> On 2010-06-04, at 11:14 PM, Luke Shepard wrote: >> >> > We have complained for years in the OpenID community that we don't see >> enough adoption. That we don't have a great mobile story. That the spec is >> too complicated. That relying parties can't get the attributes they want. >> The fact is that most of the major identity providers have adopted or are >> planning to adopt OAuth 2.0 largely because it solves many of those >> problems. >> > >> > I believe in OpenID. I believe in the concept of a decentralized >> identity. I think the OpenID Foundation, by bringing together myriad >> companies and individuals, is in a unique position to really help bring >> cohesive, standardized technology - but only if it responds to the realities >> of the marketplace. >> > >> > My main goal is to see the next generation of identity technology built. >> A secondary goal is that it is built within the OpenID Foundation. I don't >> know what the technology will look like exactly - both Nat's and David's >> proposals have merit. I think the best way to figure out the tech is to >> implement it, experiment, and try it out in production. I think the wrong >> way to make it happen is to bicker over the exact wording of the working >> group before it's even started. >> > >> > As Allen said, this work will happen - must happen. The main question to >> the OpenID Foundation is whether it wants to encourage innovation or drift >> into irrelevance. >> > >> > On Jun 4, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Dick Hardt wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Allen >> >> >> >> Thanks for the response. My point in this email is that at the end of >> the meeting, it was agreed that Connect was not going to be done in the >> OIDF, which means the WG proposal would be withdrawn. With you and David >> agreeing on the specs council call that Connect should be a WG, that goes >> counter to what we had concluded at the meeting. >> >> >> >> Note that I was not the one to suggest that Connect was not going to be >> in the OIDF, but since that was what everyone had agreed to, there was no >> point in talking about how it would be done in the OIDF. >> >> >> >> -- Dick >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2010-06-04, at 8:58 PM, Allen Tom wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Hi Dick, >> >>> >> >>> Although I might not have expressed this as strongly as I should have >> last Friday, I believe that we should be working on an identity layer for >> OAuth2 within the OIDF. >> >>> >> >>> Yahoo will definitely be implementing this, and I would expect that >> all other OAuth SPs to do the same. It would definitely simplify things if >> we could have a single standard interface that can do everything that OpenID >> 2.0 +AX+Hybrid can do today, and also be extensible to be used for future >> services and even for OP specific proprietary APIs as well. >> >>> >> >>> I expect that an OAuth based identity layer would be widely >> implemented and far more widely used than OpenID, making OpenID largely >> irrelevant. Therefore, I think it's in the OIDFs best interest to back this >> imitative. >> >>> >> >>> However, on Friday, I did get the impression that there is not >> sufficent consensus to move forward. If that's still the case, then there's >> no point forcing the issue. The work is going to get done either way. >> >>> >> >>> Hope that clarifies things >> >>> Allen >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> David, Chris, Joseph, Allen >> >>>> >> >>>> When we met last Friday to discuss how Connect and v.Next would work >> together, the four of you had agreed that it would be best doing the Connect >> work outside the OIDF. I had come to the meeting to talk about how we would >> merge or align the efforts, but since there was consensus to do it outside, >> we did not discuss. >> >>>> >> >>>> From actions I have seen today, it seems that there has been a change >> since then and that you are planning on working on Connect per the original >> charter. As emailed separately, I have concerns with the charter as drafted. >> >>>> >> >>>> I am very disappointed that I learn about your change in mind by >> seeing postings on public mailing lists. >> >>>> >> >>>> WTF? >> >>>> >> >>>> -- Dick >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Chris Messina >> Open Web Advocate, Google >> >> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com >> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina >> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina >> >> This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Chris Messina >> Open Web Advocate, Google >> >> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com >> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina >> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina >> >> This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> http://hi.im/santosh >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > -- http://hi.im/santosh
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
