+1 to closing them. The one concern I'd have (as usual) is with branding. If Connect is 'merging into" A/B, I presume that there won't be a WG with "Connect" in the name anymore. This may not be appear to be a big deal, but I do think that the OpenID Connect brand could still have some mojo, especially in contrast to Artifact Binding.
Is it possible for the A/B WG to reflect that it essentially represents the continuation of the Connect WG in its name? Chris On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 2:29 PM, John Bradley <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 as long as we are clear Connect is just merging with AB, and the final > name or version is TBA. > > John B. > > On 2011-02-21, at 6:57 PM, Breno de Medeiros wrote: > > + 1 for the closing of this groups > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 13:53, Mike Jones <[email protected]>wrote: > >> At the latest OpenID board meeting, I took the action item to have the >> specifications close down inactive working groups. This is to help >> eliminate confusion among the members about where work is occurring and >> focus people’s efforts on the active working groups. >> >> >> Per section 4.4 of the OpenID process >> document<http://openid.net/wordpress-content/uploads/2010/01/OpenID_Process_Document_December_2009_Final_Approved.pdf>, >> “The Specifications Council may recommend closure of a WG at any time that >> the WG has not had Minimum Membership for six consecutive months at the time >> of closure, and such recommendation will promptly be submitted to a vote of >> the OIDF membership, in accordance with the voting procedures in §3.” >> “Minimum Membership” is defined in section 1.6 as “five contributors”. >> >> >> It’s clear that all of these working groups meet this criteria in terms of >> lack of participation by 5 members within the last 6 months: >> >> · v.Next Core >> >> · v.Next Discovery >> >> · v.Next Attributes >> >> · v.Next Certification >> >> · v.Next User Experience >> >> >> Also, given the consensus to merge the Connect work into the Artifact >> Binding work, I would argue that we should close the Connect working group >> at the same time, so that it’s clear that people wanting to contribute to it >> should join the Artifact Binding working group, where the work is actually >> proceeding. Formally, there have been 7 contributors on the Connect working >> group list in the last 6 months: Breno de Medeiros, Chris Messina, Chuck >> Mortimore, David Recordon, John Bradley, Joseph Smarr, and Nat Sakimura. >> The most recent contribution was 11/3/10. So we could either wait a few >> months to close it, or if three of the above contributors agree that it >> should be closed, I believe we could proceed with the membership vote to >> close the working group at the same time. (I’d rather not have two >> membership votes closing working groups.) >> >> >> So after a discussion period, unless people form consensus around a >> different course of action, I’m going to propose a specs council vote that >> we close all 6 of these working groups. >> >> >> Thanks >> all, >> >> -- Mike >> >> >> P.S. The present membership of the specifications council is: >> >> · Johnny Bufu >> >> · Breno de Medeiros >> >> · Dick Hardt >> >> · Mike Jones >> >> · David Recordon >> >> · Nat Sakimura >> >> · Allen Tom >> >> > > > > -- > --Breno > > > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > -- Chris Messina Open Web Advocate, Google Website: http://chrismessina.me Blog: http://chrismessina.me/b Follow my updates: 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
