On 2010-06-04, at 7:49 PM, David Recordon wrote: > Given that it's Friday at 8pm, I'll do my best to answer Dick's questions. > Dick's assertion that the proposed Connect work group charter, "is vague, > wide ranging and heavily overlaps other working groups" certainly applies to > the v.Next proposals as well.
I had asked clarifying questions the day you posted the charter. The v.Next WGs were decided upon at the OpenID Summit and existed prior to any public disclosure of Connect. > > The first sentence of the charter clearly states that the work group will be, > "complementing other active OpenID Foundation Working Groups." If the > Discovery work group becomes active and produces useful technology, it would > certainly be adopted! please add that in then > To date no one in the OpenID Foundation has done technical work on discovery > since OpenID 2.0 was finalized. It's thus reasonable for it to be in scope > and later abandoned if all works out. If it is removed from the scope and the > Discovery work group doesn't produce a working proposal, this work group 1) > couldn't discuss discovery and 2) would have to be fully rechartered in order > to work on discovery. why not do the discovery work in the discovery WG? ... why duplicate the effort? you are part of the community, so you can participate in the discovery WG and promote the discovery work you want done. Makes no sense to do the same thing in two places. > > The goal of the charter is to help frame the problem the working group is > going to solve; not answer all of the questions about how it will happen > before the work group is even created. Not sure what that means. Your charter is vague. Please review my questions I inserted and tighten up your charter. I am not asking how the work will be done, I am asking for the charter to be clear and appropriately scoped. -- Dick
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
