Dare, the conversation on the Open Web Discussion group is that this is not intended to be a standards group. Now, these guys have swallowed the standards are too heavyweight pill (just as developers have their favorite software-engineering-is-bad-waterfall meme). - Dennis E. Hamilton from twhirl

I'm confused as to how they can claim to be about incubating and ipr of technology specifications for the Web but aren't a "standards" group. Technically the W3C isn't a standards group either, nor is the IETF. That doesn't change the fact that their specifications are intended to be standards, otherwise what is the point? - Dare Obasanjo

... the IETF has to accept and charter the work, and there is work that is out of scope for them. WebDAV is the borderline example that has always had them nervous. In any case, my sense of OpenWeb is creating guidance for managing IP issues in development of community specifications of any sort, and also incubating some specification efforts. The idea is that movement to someone's standard track is later. There may be some naivety, and there are people attracted to this who have different desires for it, but I think the basic activity can be useful. We'll see how well they can stick to it as they work through the additional formation work. - Dennis E. Hamilton from twhirl

[PS: Couldn't see any comment form on the blog page, so here I am.] - Dennis E. Hamilton from twhirl

Dare: I think they mean formally-established standards organizations. Let's back up and agree that a specification is not a standard, the IETF definition of a standard is far better. But this is for forming open, community-developed specifications that are safe for people to implement in terms of any IP of the contributors in the specification. They mean not standard in the way NTFS is not a standard, but what it would be like if the NTFS spec were under the Open Specification Promise. OK? - Dennis E. Hamilton from twhirl

Before you argue that NTFS is a kind of standard (and I agree), it is not because of its specification. A better example would be something like FrontPage Extensions. - Dennis E. Hamilton from twhirl

Umm, so the folks are process-adverse and have roots in the OpenID, OpenAuth, and Identity activities. Check out the discussions already at http://groups.google.com/group... - Dennis E. Hamilton from twhirl

There is a comment icon on the top right of each post. I can see how it is easy to miss. :) - Dare Obasanjo

But more than process-adverse, they are concerned about each one of these efforts having to go through all the process-creation activities in order to get past the five buddies with an idea about a protocol stage. We'll see how well that dance goes. - Dennis E. Hamilton from twhirl

Nothing you've said explains why the IETF is not a good fit and it already has done all the hard work with regards to figuring out IPR policy, etc. - Dare Obasanjo

The question is whether or not the IETF accepts a project. It is more than submitting an IETF draft and having a mailing list. Check with the Atom folk on what they needed to do before they were an IETF project. And the IETF process structure is fairly rigorous for standards-track work. Now, the IETF process is my favorite, especially with regard to the open-ness and availability to public participation, transparency, etc. (I lobbied for Atom to go there, for example.) But back up to the stage when there was only Atom 0.3. I think the Open Web Foundation is interested in smoothing that stage, not the next one. Maybe it will be mini-IETF in form. That's my take on what they are after. Let's see if it works out the way the convenors envision it. - Dennis E. Hamilton

Gregory: I don't understand the question. And you probably need to be specific about the IPR you have in mind. - Dennis E. Hamilton

From where I sit the process for getting acceptance into the IETF seems to be more objective than the "if you're David Recordon's homeboy" policy that seems to be getting applied at http://groups.google.com/group... . I'm perplexed by the notion that these people want to define technology specifications that everyone from small Web shops to multibillion dollar companies should implement but going through some project justification is too much work so they created OWF - Dare Obasanjo

The web is layered. It may be that each layer needs a standardization process that is optimized for the type of technologies, usage patterns, developers, etc. prevalent in that layer. - scott anderson

Heh. Many people involved with the OWF are also happy IETF supporters and contributors, and I definitely don't expect that to change! Worth noting though that the IETF also sets standards for their standards, which is a *great thing*, but many works weren't written according to those standards, yet they still need IPR frameworks and an incubation process. - DeWitt Clinton

The OWF is intended to catch the specs that *don't* go to standards bodies, at least not yet. For whatever reason many specs are slipping through the cracks, and we're wasting tremendous time and energy creating one-off foundations to (partly) catch them. Don't overlook, Dare, that some of your colleagues are also supporting this, because you guys are also downsteam of those specs. : ) - DeWitt Clinton

Love to see you get involved with this, Dare. I'd especially love to see you get involved and start participating *before* writing vitriolic posts skewering the intent. If you gave it a chance you might even agree that it is useful. : ) - DeWitt Clinton

DeWitt states it right. There's no reason a group of people who wish to write a spec should submit to a "goodness review" or pay money before they can work within the confines of a well understood, well documented IPR policy and process. One of the main reasons these one-foundations are being started is because of IPR concerns. Standards bodies like the IETF are way too slow for the interested parties at the stage they are at (usually very early on), and OASIS's (very low) fees are still too much friction. - Gabe Wachob

I don't understand the "standards body" distinction. IETF and W3C aren't standards bodies, like say ISO. They provide a home for authoring technical specs and dealing with IPR issues. It seems OWF wants to do the same thing and is somehow trying to pretend it is a different class of organization. Sounds like FUD to me. It seems dumb to create yet another standards organization but if the technical specs are good, what do I care? - Dare Obasanjo

Actually, both the IETF and W3C do call themselves standards organizations. See http://www.ietf.org/rfc... and http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ respectively. - DeWitt Clinton

But I'm going to stop responding now. I'd like to have a meaningful dialog, but you keep trying to deliberately provoke by saying insulting things, like "FUD", "dumb", "trying to pretend." I'm sorry if you don't like it, Dare. But there are some decent people involved with the OWF, and we're trying to do a good thing here and solve some real problems -- we deserve better than to be insulted. - DeWitt Clinton

I guess I haven't kept up, there was a time the W3C was explicit about not being a standards body (hence their specs are called "recommendations"). Times change. Anyway, the original point still remains that there is already an organization that meets the needs of the folks who have created OWF. It seems unnecessary to create a dueling organization which takes resources from others. - Dare Obasanjo

Perhaps a more productive question to ask is: why didn't OAuth and OpenId (as specs that didn't come from big companies) go through the IETF process? The answer to that seems like rationale for the OWF. - Adewale Oshineye

Adewale, It doesn't seem like either spec intended to be a Standard with a capital S when it started. They were semi-proprietary technologies being used by a loose coalition of companies. However they both got to the point where grown up considerations came into play and they had to talk about IPR, spec quality, interoperability, etc. That would have been a good time to take them to IETF. - Dare Obasanjo

For a history lesson on how a spec can start up in the community and end up in the IETF, just look at http://www.tbray.org/ongoing... - Dare Obasanjo

Dare, I'm disappointed that you think we're ignorant of the IETF or that OWF is based around my "homeboys". I'm happy to talk and in the video of the presentation at OSCON you'll see that I started out by saying this wasn't about me and wasn't just my presentation. - David Recordon

David, I'm just telling you what it looks like from the perspective of an outsider. From where I sit we already have too many standards bodies whose job is to define the "Open Web" including the OASIS, IETF and W3C. If you are going to get Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, etc to support a new standards body defining Web technologies, I personally would like to know that there was a good reason for it and so far I haven't heard one. Then again, it's not like my opinion matters, so godspeed. - Dare Obasanjo

David, will Facebook and SixApart be members of the Open Web Foundation? If so, you should either resign from SixApart or the board of the OpenID foundation. Can you explain why you're the "Open Platforms Tech Lead" at SixApart and still on OpenID's board but you are working to implement Facebook's proprietary platform? Maybe I'm wrong, but this Open Web Foundation looks like an end-run around existing projects and frameworks to give an air of legitimacy to certain companies' actions. Tell me why I'm wrong. - Andrew Feinberg

Andrew, like the Apache Software Foundation, individuals and not companies will be members of the Open Web Foundation. I certainly hope to see Facebook supporting OpenID in the future and wrote about why I think Facebook Connect helps make a case for OpenID: http://daveman692.livejournal.com/338297... - David Recordon