Nabble - OpenID - General

Re: IPR Update passed

2009-12-22T10:50:11Z

Thanks Darin!

I do see my vote on the IPR now, but not on the Board election. Assuming that would show up once closed?

On Dec 22, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Darin Richardson wrote:

Hey Nate,

You should be able to see all your votes on polls on that page, now. Let me know if you see anything funky on there.

Cheers!

~ Darin (sent from my phone)

On Dec 15, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Nate Angell <nate@...> wrote:

Thanks Darin! I was pretty sure I had voted and I only use the one OpenID...as that's the point really, isn't it!?!

On Dec 15, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Darin Richardson wrote:

It is a UI issue -- the votes for you and Nate (and many others) are in there but aren't appearing on the 'you voted' page. I'll look around and get it ironed out this week.

---
Darin Richardson
Refresh Media
-
http://refreshmedia.com
503-703-3558

On Dec 15, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Chris Messina wrote:

Did you sign in with the same identifier that you voted under? I presume so... but it's worth asking.

Actually, looking at my page, I don't see that my vote is listed either... maybe it's just a UI issue?

Chris

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Nate Angell <nate@...nate@...> wrote:

Glad to see it passed!

Oddly, although I voted on the IPR poll, when I log into the membership area it says I have never voted for anything. That makes me wonder if my vote was counted (though if it wasn't, it would not have changed the outcome as I voted to accept the IPR changes) or if whatever mechanism reports on votes is broken.

On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Chris Messina wrote:

w00t!

Will there be a final tally and blog post put out about this (I believe there should be!)?

In the meantime, members can view the results here:

https://openid.net/foundation/members/polls/21

Non-members can view the results here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/4187611971/

Chris

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Don Thibeau <don@...don@...> wrote:
Please be advised the IPR poll has closed and the vote to update the OpenID IPR process has passed.
Thanks to all who voted
Don Thibeau
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: IPR Update passed

2009-12-15T14:53:26Z

Thanks Darin! I was pretty sure I had voted and I only use the one OpenID...as that's the point really, isn't it!?!

On Dec 15, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Darin Richardson wrote:

It is a UI issue -- the votes for you and Nate (and many others) are in there but aren't appearing on the 'you voted' page. I'll look around and get it ironed out this week.

---
Darin Richardson
Refresh Media
-
http://refreshmedia.com
503-703-3558

On Dec 15, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Chris Messina wrote:

Did you sign in with the same identifier that you voted under? I presume so... but it's worth asking.

Actually, looking at my page, I don't see that my vote is listed either... maybe it's just a UI issue?

Chris

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Nate Angell <nate@...> wrote:

Glad to see it passed!

Oddly, although I voted on the IPR poll, when I log into the membership area it says I have never voted for anything. That makes me wonder if my vote was counted (though if it wasn't, it would not have changed the outcome as I voted to accept the IPR changes) or if whatever mechanism reports on votes is broken.

On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Chris Messina wrote:

w00t!

Will there be a final tally and blog post put out about this (I believe there should be!)?

In the meantime, members can view the results here:

https://openid.net/foundation/members/polls/21

Non-members can view the results here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/4187611971/

Chris

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Don Thibeau <don@...> wrote:
Please be advised the IPR poll has closed and the vote to update the OpenID IPR process has passed.
Thanks to all who voted
Don Thibeau
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: IPR Update passed

2009-12-15T14:10:36Z

Did you sign in with the same identifier that you voted under? I presume so... but it's worth asking.

Actually, looking at my page, I don't see that my vote is listed either... maybe it's just a UI issue?

Chris

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Nate Angell <nate@...> wrote:

Glad to see it passed!

Oddly, although I voted on the IPR poll, when I log into the membership area it says I have never voted for anything. That makes me wonder if my vote was counted (though if it wasn't, it would not have changed the outcome as I voted to accept the IPR changes) or if whatever mechanism reports on votes is broken.

On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Chris Messina wrote:

w00t!

Will there be a final tally and blog post put out about this (I believe there should be!)?

In the meantime, members can view the results here:

https://openid.net/foundation/members/polls/21

Non-members can view the results here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/4187611971/

Chris

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Don Thibeau <don@...> wrote:
Please be advised the IPR poll has closed and the vote to update the OpenID IPR process has passed.
Thanks to all who voted
Don Thibeau
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: IPR Update passed

2009-12-15T13:50:43Z

Glad to see it passed!

Oddly, although I voted on the IPR poll, when I log into the membership area it says I have never voted for anything. That makes me wonder if my vote was counted (though if it wasn't, it would not have changed the outcome as I voted to accept the IPR changes) or if whatever mechanism reports on votes is broken.

On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Chris Messina wrote:

w00t!

Will there be a final tally and blog post put out about this (I believe there should be!)?

In the meantime, members can view the results here:

https://openid.net/foundation/members/polls/21

Non-members can view the results here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/4187611971/

Chris

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Don Thibeau <don@...> wrote:
Please be advised the IPR poll has closed and the vote to update the OpenID IPR process has passed.
Thanks to all who voted
Don Thibeau
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: IPR Update passed

2009-12-15T10:38:40Z

w00t!

Will there be a final tally and blog post put out about this (I believe there should be!)?

In the meantime, members can view the results here:

https://openid.net/foundation/members/polls/21

Non-members can view the results here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/4187611971/

Chris

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Don Thibeau <don@...> wrote:

Please be advised the IPR poll has closed and the vote to update the OpenID IPR process has passed.
Thanks to all who voted
Don Thibeau
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

IPR Update passed

2009-12-15T10:33:03Z

Please be advised the IPR poll has closed and the vote to update the OpenID IPR process has passed.
Thanks to all who voted
Don Thibeau
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: JanRain Raises $3.25m

2009-12-07T13:57:26Z

This is indeed great news!

I wonder if this means that we'll now see some investment in the OpenID libraries and openid-enabled.com website? ;)

In any case, this is great validation of an independent OpenID-technology provider.

Chris

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Steven Livingstone-Perez <weblivz@...> wrote:

Just saw this. Well done to JanRain.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-janrain-raises-3.25-million-for-online-identity-technology/

/steven

http://livz.org

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

JanRain Raises $3.25m

2009-12-07T13:44:44Z

Just saw this. Well done to JanRain.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-janrain-raises-3.25-million-for-online-identity-technology/

/steven

http://livz.org

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

My six seconding, of nominations to the OpenID board

2009-12-06T03:57:40Z

I am currently moderated out of the Open ID general list. But I think this post of mine should be accepted, Because it has to do with the coming OpenID board elections, and I would like to express my views in public.

I have seconded three people so far, and will give the reasons for why i have seconded them. Also I will express my views on three more people I would like to second for this election. Please make sure that there is a very small delay to make this post (because I am being moderated).

1) John Bradley. John is very competent when it comes to the security issues involved with OpenID, and we all respect him for that. Further John has a fantastic quality with which, he can engage all kinds of people (including me) in a dialogue, which i think is one of the required qualities for the board. And John is the kind of man who will lead from the front. I also honestly feel John is the kind of man we need for the chairman of the board.

2) Dirk Balfanz. I second Dirks nomination. because I feel he is a brilliant man, he has done some great work for federated login's, and even though i don't agree with him technically, on some issues, this election is not about agreement on viewpoints, this election is about people who have contributed to the idea of "Identity" and i think Dirk's contribution in the last one year should be rated as one of the top most.

3) Dick Hardt. Dick seems to be a mellowing, mature voice in this whole foundation. He has the strength, will, and capability to face problems head front, i also have a great respect for Dick's technical viewpoint. Dick is not the kind of man you can easily argue with and win. And I think that is one of the great qualities we need for the board.

Now here I am going to give three names who have NOT nominated themselves so far (as of right now 5.15pm Indian ST), and who's nomination i would like to see, and I would second them.

4) Allen Tom. Allen is the quintessential "nice guy", I mean he is a man who should always be on the board. And my seconding for him goes with no doubt. Allen I love You, and you are the only man on our board, i can easily say that. You really are a nice wonderful guy.

5) Nat Sakimura. I do not agree with Nat on many viewpoints. But Nat is one of the hardest working men at OpenID. Nat may not be everywhere, but he has a tremendoes amount of strength to take things forward at OPenID. And my seconding will go to him.

6) John Kemp. I don't know if John will nominate himself. I wish he would. John is the only man here who has a "Deeper" sense of what is really going on. John's understanding of whatever is happening at the OpenID forum, is much deeper, I would venture to say he is the "only man who really understands". I have no science and logic to explain John's thinking. But I firmly believe, a man like John is in order for our board.

Thanks all

Santosh

--
http://hi.im/santosh

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Santosh Rajan http://santrajan.blogspot.com

Re: DotNetOpenAuth v3.3 and improved login UX released

2009-12-03T13:29:09Z

Hi Andrew, FWIW, I still see that strange character truncation of my OpenID on the UI

See http://paulmadsen.posterous.com/initial-url-characters-truncated

you cant see the characters but I did type in 'http' at the start.

The login works, but not seeing what you know you entered is disconcerting

Anybody else?

paul

Andrew Arnott wrote:

The free OpenID+OAuth+InfoCard library for .NET just released its v3.3 version.

Many of you have already seen its login UX that's designed to make it easier for users unfamiliar with OpenID to log into sites for the first time. Thanks to all of you for your feedback that helped make it what it is. I still want to make it available for any OpenID library to just integrate with and use regardless of platform or language, so if that's interesting to you let me know what you can do to help make that happen.

--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
  

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: DotNetOpenAuth v3.3 and improved login UX released

2009-12-03T11:56:42Z

I'm using vanilla Safari Version 4.0.4 (6531.21.10) on Snow Leopard.

Chris

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott@...> wrote:

Thanks for that, Chris. What version of Safari are you using and OS? Safari 4 (or whatever the latest is) on Windows worked for me.

I'll get that logo updated.

--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Chris Messina <chris.messina@...> wrote:

Thanks for your continued work on this Andrew!

A couple things:

1. it doesn't seem to work in Safari:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25419820@N00/4155557109

2. could you replace the OpenID logo you have with the new logo?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25419820@N00/4156322132

You can get the latest logo from here: http://wiki.openid.net/Logo

Thanks!

Chris

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott@...> wrote:

The free OpenID+OAuth+InfoCard library for .NET just released its v3.3 version.

Many of you have already seen its login UX that's designed to make it easier for users unfamiliar with OpenID to log into sites for the first time. Thanks to all of you for your feedback that helped make it what it is. I still want to make it available for any OpenID library to just integrate with and use regardless of platform or language, so if that's interesting to you let me know what you can do to help make that happen.

--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: DotNetOpenAuth v3.3 and improved login UX released

2009-12-03T11:50:03Z

Thanks for that, Chris. What version of Safari are you using and OS? Safari 4 (or whatever the latest is) on Windows worked for me.

I'll get that logo updated.
--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Chris Messina <chris.messina@...> wrote:

Thanks for your continued work on this Andrew!

A couple things:

1. it doesn't seem to work in Safari:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25419820@N00/4155557109

2. could you replace the OpenID logo you have with the new logo?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25419820@N00/4156322132

You can get the latest logo from here: http://wiki.openid.net/Logo

Thanks!

Chris

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott@...> wrote:

The free OpenID+OAuth+InfoCard library for .NET just released its v3.3 version.

Many of you have already seen its login UX that's designed to make it easier for users unfamiliar with OpenID to log into sites for the first time. Thanks to all of you for your feedback that helped make it what it is. I still want to make it available for any OpenID library to just integrate with and use regardless of platform or language, so if that's interesting to you let me know what you can do to help make that happen.

--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: DotNetOpenAuth v3.3 and improved login UX released

2009-12-03T11:45:24Z

Thanks for your continued work on this Andrew!

A couple things:

1. it doesn't seem to work in Safari:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25419820@N00/4155557109

2. could you replace the OpenID logo you have with the new logo?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25419820@N00/4156322132

You can get the latest logo from here: http://wiki.openid.net/Logo

Thanks!

Chris

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott@...> wrote:

The free OpenID+OAuth+InfoCard library for .NET just released its v3.3 version.

Many of you have already seen its login UX that's designed to make it easier for users unfamiliar with OpenID to log into sites for the first time. Thanks to all of you for your feedback that helped make it what it is. I still want to make it available for any OpenID library to just integrate with and use regardless of platform or language, so if that's interesting to you let me know what you can do to help make that happen.

--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

DotNetOpenAuth v3.3 and improved login UX released

2009-12-03T01:30:16Z

The free OpenID+OAuth+InfoCard library for .NET just released its v3.3 version.

Many of you have already seen its login UX that's designed to make it easier for users unfamiliar with OpenID to log into sites for the first time. Thanks to all of you for your feedback that helped make it what it is. I still want to make it available for any OpenID library to just integrate with and use regardless of platform or language, so if that's interesting to you let me know what you can do to help make that happen.

--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: [OpenID board] On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-30T16:24:12Z

(bcc: Santosh, because I think that it's only fair to tell someone when talking about them on a public list)

My posting of user stats to the list was one of the proximate triggers for the behavior that led to the banning. I had honestly hoped that it would be viewed as constructive, objective, data-driven feedback, and I'm sorry Santosh didn't take it that way. At the same time, he owns his own words, his response was over the top, not acceptable, and far from the first offense.

To be clear, I've been flamed and verbally attacked far worse in the past, even on technical mailing lists, and I mostly ignore it. However, I'm more concerned about the negative impact his postings have on the productivity and overall tone of this and other lists.

I think that he has many interesting ideas and energy and I wish and hope he will be a productive member of this technical community in the future. I do believe that people should receive a firm warning that their behavior is unacceptable before the boom is lowered; I know that he has gotten messages off-list about this, but I don't know whether he got a clear warning or not. I do know that there were on-list efforts to set expectations for civil discourse and he didn't take those hints.

So, I'm not sure if I agree with David's exact verdict, but I very much support that an admin/moderator take action in this and similar cases. I do believe though that justice should both be done and be seen to be done, and I don't think it was in this case. That troubles me and I hope we can rectify it.

--
John Panzer / Google
jpanzer@... / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) <eddy_nigg@...> wrote:

On 11/30/2009 06:32 PM, Brian Kissel:
Hello All,

Thanks to everyone for sharing their input so far.  Please do send me your thoughts directly and let's keep it off the list at this point.
Why? This concerns all participants, I feel that taking it off-line doesn't any good either.

Regards

Signer: Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd.

XMPP: startcom@...

Blog: Join the Revolution!

Twitter: Follow Me
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: [OpenID board] On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-30T15:07:27Z

On 11/30/2009 06:32 PM, Brian Kissel:

Hello All,

Thanks to everyone for sharing their input so far.  Please do send me your thoughts directly and let's keep it off the list at this point.

Why? This concerns all participants, I feel that taking it off-line doesn't any good either.

Regards

Signer:	Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd.
XMPP:	startcom@...
Blog:	Join the Revolution!
Twitter:	Follow Me

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-30T08:32:20Z

Hello All,

Thanks to everyone for sharing their input so far. Please do send me your thoughts directly and let's keep it off the list at this point. The board will be discussing on our next board call this week and come up with a fair and consistent policy for all our lists.

Cheers,

Brian
___________

Brian Kissel
CEO, JanRain - WebID and Social Publishing for User Engagement
Email: bkissel@... Cell: 503.866.4424 Fax: 503.296.5502

-----Original Message-----
From: openid-general-bounces@... [mailto:openid-general-bounces@...] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 7:01 AM
To: dcrocker@...
Cc: board@...; general General
Subject: Re: [OpenID] On the banning of Santosh

I was offline for most of yesterday so it may take me some time to catch up on this thread.

Because the list has no policy I expressed my concerns about inappropriate comments directly to Santosh. Escalating things further on the list was not appropriate for me to engage in.

I understand why David felt he should act. I believe his intentions were good.

However I think the issue should be dealt with by the board and not a single individual.

I contacted the Foundation ED and Chair asking that the issue of moderation on the list be dealt with at there earliest opportunity.

I recommend contacting Brian Kissel <bkissel@...> directly if you have input on the issue.

It would be unfortunate if the debate on list policy turns out to be more distracting than the original problem.

Regards
John B.
On 2009-11-29, at 6:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>
>
> David Recordon wrote:
>> It's not like Santosh acting in this manner just started yesterday.
>
>
> Frequently, the importance of proper procedure is for those doing the enforcement, not for those on the receiving end of it. So in a very basic way, it does not matter what his history has been. What matters is the history of the list's management.
>
> The list has had no rules. The list has had no history of enforcement.
>
> By definition, therefore, any immediate decision to banish someone is capricious,made more so by being an individual's decision. It does not matter whether you or I or anyone else happen to agree (or disagree) that the banished participant went too far. What matters is that there were no established criteria and procedures for taking action against them.
>
> Perhaps my understand of this list is wrong and it really is meant to function at the whimsy of one or a few individuals. There's nothing wrong with such lists -- as long as participants understand the model. But I have had the impression that this is meant to function more as a "community" list. If it is, then it requires community rules.
>
> Were the individual's actions causing what the US Supreme Court called "clear and present danger", then it's fine to do whatever is necessary to remove the threat.
>
> But of course, that's not the issue here. Distracting, yes. Dangerous, no.
>
> Due process requires first establishing the process.
>
> Only after that can the process be applied.
>
> d/
> --
>
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@...
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-30T08:20:07Z

John Bradley wrote:
> It would be unfortunate if the debate on list policy turns out to be more
> distracting than the original problem.

Too late. Looks like it already has...

FWIW, it's a topic that usually does consume a list for awhile, which is another
reason it's a good idea to have real, active, hands-on management of a list,
with respect to misbehaviors: It delegates the distraction to one or a few
people, gives them rules to enforce, and leaves the rest of the list to focus on
actual work.

d/
--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-30T07:01:19Z

I was offline for most of yesterday so it may take me some time to catch up on this thread.

Because the list has no policy I expressed my concerns about inappropriate comments directly to Santosh. Escalating things further on the list was not appropriate for me to engage in.

I understand why David felt he should act. I believe his intentions were good.

However I think the issue should be dealt with by the board and not a single individual.

I contacted the Foundation ED and Chair asking that the issue of moderation on the list be dealt with at there earliest opportunity.

I recommend contacting Brian Kissel <bkissel@...> directly if you have input on the issue.

It would be unfortunate if the debate on list policy turns out to be more distracting than the original problem.

Regards
John B.
On 2009-11-29, at 6:01 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment

Re: rationale behind short-lived associations

2009-11-30T06:42:47Z

Will,

This is probably a specs list conversation. I recommend moving it there.

In the profile we considered a number of issues.

1. The RP MUST use TLS for the association. The RP is protected against an attacker spoofing the OP by the OP's certificate.
2. We specified minimum cypher-suites for TLS. Nothing in the openID spec requires encryption over TLS. (Most libs rely on default configs and don't check)
3. We did not ban HMAC-SHA1 associations immediately.

Remember that in openID I can discover the association handle that any given RP uses with any OP because they are sent in the clear in the request. This allows an attacker to craft arbitrary authentication requests as the RP the the OP will respond to via the attacker.

As long as the OP includes the nonce as one of the signed elements the attacker is probably limited to a brute force attack. If the OP also supports openID 1.0 without a nonce that opens other theoretical attacks.

The spec provides no upper limit. This makes it difficult to quantify resistance to a brute force attack against. Even SSL certs expire for similar reasons.

I looked at common practice amongst the large IdP. That ranged from hours to 4 weeks.
In conversation with the IdP 24h was agreed to be a reasonable lifetime. The extra processing of renewing associations once a day was not considered significant.

In your SSH example it is up to the user to determine if they are still talking to the intended host if the keys change.

Using long lived HMAC keys and requiring some sort of manual (or meta-data) rekeying requires changes to the openID 2.0 spec to be beneficial in a similar way to ssh.

If we were not requiring a SSL association against a known whitelist by the RP the answer might not have been so clear. One option would be to move to SHA256 and extend the association. However there is no way in the existing spec to take advantage of that.

If you like you can blame me for picking an arbitrary number:)

John B.
On 2009-11-29, at 3:34 PM, Will Norris wrote:

> One question has been bugging me for a while after reading the ICAM OpenID profile[0]. The ICAM profile specifies that associations must expire within at least 24 hours. What's the rationale behind this?
>
> Or put another way, what about the benefits of using long-lived associations? Take SSH host keys for example. They MUST be long lived to actually serve the purpose they are intended for... to ensure that host you're talking to today is the same host you talked to yesterday, and the day before that. Now for the really paranoid, you would verify the SSH host key out of band some way, but I'm certainly not suggesting that (I've gotten my fill of that with SAML metadata exchange). But even without the out of band verification, there is a lot of value just in having the host key long lived.
>
> Why are these same principals not applied to OpenID associations? Am I overloading the purpose of the association?
>
> [0]: http://www.idmanagement.gov/documents/ICAM_OpenID20Profile.pdf
>
> -will
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@...
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-30T06:13:21Z

What I would expect from the moderator each time they decide a message should not be allowed through to the list, is to contact the sender specifying the objectionable language and asking them to re-word it and re-send it so the moderator can let it through the second time around.

Brett McDowell | http://info.brettmcdowell.com | http://KantaraInitiative.org

On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Andrew Arnott wrote:

Personally I don't like the moderation idea. If judging what is "offensive" is indeed subjective, then judging each individual email rather than an individual's tendency will force that subjective decision to be much more frequent. It of course is a burden on at least some member(s) of the community to perform moderation, and all as the result of a deviant's unwillingness to abide by rules.

Just my opinion, but it seems like banning is a good, cheap way to send a clear message that someone needs to "shape up or ship out".

But moderation would work too I think.
--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Brett McDowell <email@...> wrote:

On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Andrew Arnott wrote:

> It sounds to me like everyone agrees that perhaps the ideal order of handling an issue like this is "guidance -> warning -> banning".

Actually, the exchange between Dick and David opens up a new approach that might prove to be common ground between those that want banning and those that oppose it. What if the process is modified to "guidance -> warning -> moderating" and we take banning off the table?

Our first concern with this might be the logistics of finding someone the community will trust who also has the time and energy to agree to moderating a given subscriber who has been put on this type of "probation". One way to remove the logistical concerns would be for OIDF to provide this as a service to the community. Since no one wants moderation of technical substance, I don't think the moderator need be a subject matter expert and therefore perhaps someone from the OIDF Secretariat (Global Inventures?) could take this on, on an as needed basis? This service should be invoked quite rarely... perhaps this one episode will actually be the last.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-30T06:10:27Z

Personally I don't like the moderation idea. If judging what is "offensive" is indeed subjective, then judging each individual email rather than an individual's tendency will force that subjective decision to be much more frequent. It of course is a burden on at least some member(s) of the community to perform moderation, and all as the result of a deviant's unwillingness to abide by rules.

Just my opinion, but it seems like banning is a good, cheap way to send a clear message that someone needs to "shape up or ship out".

But moderation would work too I think.
--
Andrew Arnott
"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Brett McDowell <email@...> wrote:

On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Andrew Arnott wrote:

> It sounds to me like everyone agrees that perhaps the ideal order of handling an issue like this is "guidance -> warning -> banning".

Actually, the exchange between Dick and David opens up a new approach that might prove to be common ground between those that want banning and those that oppose it. What if the process is modified to "guidance -> warning -> moderating" and we take banning off the table?

Our first concern with this might be the logistics of finding someone the community will trust who also has the time and energy to agree to moderating a given subscriber who has been put on this type of "probation". One way to remove the logistical concerns would be for OIDF to provide this as a service to the community. Since no one wants moderation of technical substance, I don't think the moderator need be a subject matter expert and therefore perhaps someone from the OIDF Secretariat (Global Inventures?) could take this on, on an as needed basis? This service should be invoked quite rarely... perhaps this one episode will actually be the last.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-30T06:00:42Z

On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Andrew Arnott wrote:

> It sounds to me like everyone agrees that perhaps the ideal order of handling an issue like this is "guidance -> warning -> banning".

Actually, the exchange between Dick and David opens up a new approach that might prove to be common ground between those that want banning and those that oppose it. What if the process is modified to "guidance -> warning -> moderating" and we take banning off the table?

Our first concern with this might be the logistics of finding someone the community will trust who also has the time and energy to agree to moderating a given subscriber who has been put on this type of "probation". One way to remove the logistical concerns would be for OIDF to provide this as a service to the community. Since no one wants moderation of technical substance, I don't think the moderator need be a subject matter expert and therefore perhaps someone from the OIDF Secretariat (Global Inventures?) could take this on, on an as needed basis? This service should be invoked quite rarely... perhaps this one episode will actually be the last.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-30T05:47:29Z

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@...> wrote:

On 2009-11-29, at 8:31 PM, David Recordon wrote:
Yes and I feel like I and others have tried doing this multiple times over the past six months. I've directly sent him emails off of the list when I first noticed this sort of behavior in addition to replying to multiple inappropriate comments of his on the list as well. The simple solution would have been to have banned him months ago; that's not what we did.

To start with, apologies for jumping midway into a topic. I saw a flurry of traffic, and after reading the thread, was concerned that the action was NOT in the best interest of the community.

From my understanding, Santosh was NOT warned that he would be banned from the list if he continued his behaviour. Is that correct? If so,

Ah, so I believe we actually see things similarly. It sounds to me like everyone agrees that perhaps the ideal order of handling an issue like this is "guidance -> warning -> banning". Absolutely coaching a contributor to be more respectful is the first and most preferred step. If that fails, and the behavior is against the rules (which we have now posted in draft), and the contributor ignores the warning, then banning is an acceptable last resort.

That wasn't entirely the process we followed here, in that no rules were posted. I know several people "guided" Santosh to be more respectful. It sounds like David warned him -- whether actually threatening to ban him I'm not sure -- and finally he was banned. In the future, we'll improve by having those rules, and perhaps being explicit in a warning from an admin that a member will be banned.

If anything more needs to be said, perhaps it can be said off-list. This has become much more meta-list discussion than a discussion about OpenID. I can't believe a topic like this hasn't been had many hundreds/thousands of times on other lists and re-inventing it here seems like a distraction if it goes beyond "what can we do about it now?"

Just my 2c.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-29T22:48:37Z

On 2009-11-29, at 8:31 PM, David Recordon wrote:

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@...> wrote:

On 2009-11-29, at 8:05 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
It's not fair to single out David for that action.

I, for one, wholeheartedly supported it. Asked for it, actually.

I hope that David interprets my comments as constructive criticism. It has been a delight to see David develop as strong leader of the community over the years. I understood David is the one that wielded the axe.

Don't worry, even though I disagree with you I'm not misinterpreting your comments. And thanks.

<phew!>

I may have done the same thing if I had been in your shoes. Having been relatively passive on the list lately, I have a different perspective.

I'm also boggled why people are arguing against asking people to leave when they cross the line and start attacking other people.

Asking people to leave, and kicking them out are two very different actions.

Banning someone is the simple solution.

Turning Santosh into a constructive, respectful contributor is the ideal I would strive for. Would you not agree?

Yes and I feel like I and others have tried doing this multiple times over the past six months. I've directly sent him emails off of the list when I first noticed this sort of behavior in addition to replying to multiple inappropriate comments of his on the list as well. The simple solution would have been to have banned him months ago; that's not what we did.

To start with, apologies for jumping midway into a topic. I saw a flurry of traffic, and after reading the thread, was concerned that the action was NOT in the best interest of the community.

From my understanding, Santosh was NOT warned that he would be banned from the list if he continued his behaviour. Is that correct? If so,

I considered moderating all of his posts for approval instead of banning him from this list for a month, but logistically it didn't seem plausible. If you're willing to review and moderate all of his posts I'm more than happy to set you up to do that. I just know that I couldn't commit to doing that in a timely fashion.

If that what we need to do so that Santosh can participate productively, then, sure, I will do that if there is rough consensus with everyone.

Suggestion: in IETF WG there is the role of the chair. Perhaps we should elect chairs for the mail lists? Separate from admins. (may be the same person, but different hats)

-- Dick

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-29T22:31:41Z

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@...> wrote:

On 2009-11-29, at 8:05 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
It's not fair to single out David for that action.

I, for one, wholeheartedly supported it. Asked for it, actually.

I hope that David interprets my comments as constructive criticism. It has been a delight to see David develop as strong leader of the community over the years. I understood David is the one that wielded the axe.

Don't worry, even though I disagree with you I'm not misinterpreting your comments. And thanks.

I'm also boggled why people are arguing against asking people to leave when they cross the line and start attacking other people.

Asking people to leave, and kicking them out are two very different actions.

Banning someone is the simple solution.

Turning Santosh into a constructive, respectful contributor is the ideal I would strive for. Would you not agree?

Yes and I feel like I and others have tried doing this multiple times over the past six months. I've directly sent him emails off of the list when I first noticed this sort of behavior in addition to replying to multiple inappropriate comments of his on the list as well. The simple solution would have been to have banned him months ago; that's not what we did.

I considered moderating all of his posts for approval instead of banning him from this list for a month, but logistically it didn't seem plausible. If you're willing to review and moderate all of his posts I'm more than happy to set you up to do that. I just know that I couldn't commit to doing that in a timely fashion.

--David

-- Dick

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-29T22:15:27Z

On 2009-11-29, at 8:05 PM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:

It's not fair to single out David for that action.

I, for one, wholeheartedly supported it. Asked for it, actually.

I hope that David interprets my comments as constructive criticism. It has been a delight to see David develop as strong leader of the community over the years. I understood David is the one that wielded the axe.

I'm also boggled why people are arguing against asking people to leave when they cross the line and start attacking other people.

Asking people to leave, and kicking them out are two very different actions.

Banning someone is the simple solution.

Turning Santosh into a constructive, respectful contributor is the ideal I would strive for. Would you not agree?

-- Dick

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-29T22:05:12Z

It's not fair to single out David for that action.

I, for one, wholeheartedly supported it. Asked for it, actually.

I'm also boggled why people are arguing against asking people to leave when they cross the line and start attacking other people.

-DeWitt

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@...> wrote:

On 2009-11-29, at 5:20 PM, Andrew Arnott wrote:
On 11/30/2009 04:50 AM, Dick Hardt:
I would propose that we adopt the Microformats policy except for #16 (and number them!), allow Santosh back on the list, apologize for banning him, and direct him at the new policy and ask that he (and others) comply.
  
Eddy replied:
Dick, myself am not famous for overly diplomatic tones sometimes, but calling somebody a stupid, idiotic, prejudiced human being, warrants some actions in my opinion. That the list should even apologize to the offender seems to me ridiculous. If the participants don't value themselves and their dignity, they deserve none.

+~1 to Eddy. I don't think we should return injury for injury. Everyone should be treated with respect IMO. But those who refuse to treat others with respect don't need to be privileged by the community with a medium by which their disrespect can be more easily transmitted.
... and who is the judge of what is respectful? Why are you choosing the path of punishment vs education? Why not enlightenment over banishment?

Imagine what a force Santosh would be for OpenID if he was encouraged to particpate in a productive manner? Imagine how he views the OpenID community now?

Dick also said:
I disagree with removing Santosh from the mail list. I prefer a fully inclusive community.

Wanting a fully inclusive community, but in which community personal attacks are allowed, is a paradox IMO. I think what we want here is a useful forum in which many viewpoints on OpenID-related issues can be discussed. We lose that when personal attacks threaten to encourage respectful people with good ideas to leave the mailing list.

I am not condoning Santosh's behaviour. I am criticizing how it was dealt with.

Dick again:
While I can empathize with the frustration of someone not being what we consider respectful,

I'll be bold enough to say it was very disrespectful. To say merely that "someone might not consider Santosh's comments to be respectful" is an insult to those he flamed IMO. This isn't really a correction to your words, Dick, as it looks from context that you were speaking of the general danger of this rather than this specific case.

Being disrespectful is subjective. I don't want to argue about it. If you thought it was disrespectful, did you email Santosh off list and suggest how he could be more respectful?

I actually wasn't offended at Santosh's attack on me, because it was obvious to me he spoke in the heat of the moment. However if we really want this "all inclusive of ideas" community, it's very important that people don't attack others personally when they don't like the ideas that those others are sharing.
That is an ideal we can strive for. Does banning Santosh going to encourage that?

In my view, you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Inaction is being part of the problem.

IMHO banning Santosh did not solve anything. It was a divisive action instead of a unifying action. As much as I respect what David has done for OpenID, and value action over talk: this was a situation where discussion needed to occur prior to action.

-- Dick
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-29T21:53:14Z

On 2009-11-29, at 5:20 PM, Andrew Arnott wrote:

On 11/30/2009 04:50 AM, Dick Hardt:
I would propose that we adopt the Microformats policy except for #16 (and number them!), allow Santosh back on the list, apologize for banning him, and direct him at the new policy and ask that he (and others) comply.
  
Eddy replied:
Dick, myself am not famous for overly diplomatic tones sometimes, but calling somebody a stupid, idiotic, prejudiced human being, warrants some actions in my opinion. That the list should even apologize to the offender seems to me ridiculous. If the participants don't value themselves and their dignity, they deserve none.

+~1 to Eddy. I don't think we should return injury for injury. Everyone should be treated with respect IMO. But those who refuse to treat others with respect don't need to be privileged by the community with a medium by which their disrespect can be more easily transmitted.

... and who is the judge of what is respectful? Why are you choosing the path of punishment vs education? Why not enlightenment over banishment?

Imagine what a force Santosh would be for OpenID if he was encouraged to particpate in a productive manner? Imagine how he views the OpenID community now?

Dick also said:
I disagree with removing Santosh from the mail list. I prefer a fully inclusive community.

Wanting a fully inclusive community, but in which community personal attacks are allowed, is a paradox IMO. I think what we want here is a useful forum in which many viewpoints on OpenID-related issues can be discussed. We lose that when personal attacks threaten to encourage respectful people with good ideas to leave the mailing list.

I am not condoning Santosh's behaviour. I am criticizing how it was dealt with.

Dick again:
While I can empathize with the frustration of someone not being what we consider respectful,

I'll be bold enough to say it was very disrespectful. To say merely that "someone might not consider Santosh's comments to be respectful" is an insult to those he flamed IMO. This isn't really a correction to your words, Dick, as it looks from context that you were speaking of the general danger of this rather than this specific case.

Being disrespectful is subjective. I don't want to argue about it. If you thought it was disrespectful, did you email Santosh off list and suggest how he could be more respectful?

I actually wasn't offended at Santosh's attack on me, because it was obvious to me he spoke in the heat of the moment. However if we really want this "all inclusive of ideas" community, it's very important that people don't attack others personally when they don't like the ideas that those others are sharing.

That is an ideal we can strive for. Does banning Santosh going to encourage that?

In my view, you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Inaction is being part of the problem.

IMHO banning Santosh did not solve anything. It was a divisive action instead of a unifying action. As much as I respect what David has done for OpenID, and value action over talk: this was a situation where discussion needed to occur prior to action.

-- Dick

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-29T21:40:09Z

On 2009-11-29, at 6:08 PM, Chris Messina wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@...> wrote:
>
> I disagree with removing Santosh from the mail list. I prefer a fully inclusive community. I remember some pretty abusive flame wars on the perl5-porters mail list in the early 90s. The inclusive approach that Larry Wall took was that we all knew where the delete key was, and if we were lazy, we could add the annoying member to a kill file so that we never saw their email.
>
> While I prefer inclusivity as well, I don't believe that we should abide behavior that in its effect is exclusive.

We don[t have to. We all could email Santosh offlist and tell him we did not think it was appropriate behaviour and encourage him to participate in a productive way. How many people did that?

>
> I understand that flame wars happen from time to time. That doesn't mean that they should be "okay".

I'm not suggesting they are "okay". I'm suggesting we should rise above the flame, understand what is going on, and remember why we are all here. Santosh may have been frustrated, but I don't think he is "evil". He was not abusing the list. He was upset with other people's behaviour, and exhibited behaviour that was more unacceptable. I strongly believe the appropriate response is to educate, not punish.

> Furthermore, the web and its participants have become much more diverse since the 90s.

Really?

> This calls for a modernization of social norms on lists such as ours and therefore an aggressive approach in dealing with ad hominem attacks.

I don't think there is anything different now then there was 15 years ago. People are still people.

>
> Verbal bullying is never productive, and banning someone for a set period of time is one effective way of creating distance between the intimidator and their target.

It was not productive 15 years ago either. I gained huge respect for Larry Wall as I watched his approach to dealing with flame wars. We do not need to reinvent the wheel, particularly on social interactions.

>
> While we haven't done a great job making it clear who the admins of the lists are and what their jobs entail, one of the reasons we have admins is to act to protect the interests of community in situations like this (the interests being a productive, safe environment for discourse).

Uh, I would not agree with that. List admins admin the list. Being a judge of what is inappropriate behaviour is not what I would think an admin would do.

>
> I think David did the right thing by warning Santosh on several occasions. Santosh is the master of his behavior; if he wanted to continue being prickly to the point where he became verbally violent, I think that he must bear the consequences therein. Being banned from a mailing list is nothing new; it should not come as a surprise that the next logical escalation was such a step.

Really? I do not know of a case of anyone every being banned from a list that was not a spammer. (ie. they signed up to the list to send unsolicited commercial email. Santosh clearly was a member of the community.

>
> Did you read the version that I posted to the wiki? I can't tell if you're providing feedback or alternative wording to what I already wrote up?
>
> http://wiki.openid.net/Mailing-List-Policies

I had not seen my post when I had sent my reply. Thanks for posting these. I disagree with:

"With great power comes great responsibility. People who violate the goodwill of the list community will be unsubscribed swiftly. This responsibility lies with the list admins who are charged with the stewardship of the community lists."

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-29T20:41:33Z

To Andrew’s point

“However if we really want this "all inclusive of ideas" community, it's very important that people don't attack others personally when they don't like the ideas that those others are sharing”

Not everyone has as thick a skin as Andrew and Dick, and I don’t think we want to intimidate members from contributing for concern about personal attacks. Now that we have a draft policy, let’s get feedback on it, then implement it. I do feel we should retain the right to give someone a “time out” if they are abusing the privilege of respectful use of our lists.

Cheers,

Brian

___________

Brian Kissel

Email: bkissel@... Cell: 503.866.4424 Fax: 503.296.5502

From: openid-general-bounces@... [mailto:openid-general-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Andrew Arnott
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:21 PM
To: Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)
Cc: general List
Subject: Re: [OpenID] On the banning of Santosh

On 11/30/2009 04:50 AM, Dick Hardt:

I would propose that we adopt the Microformats policy except for #16 (and number them!), allow Santosh back on the list, apologize for banning him, and direct him at the new policy and ask that he (and others) comply.

Eddy replied:

Dick, myself am not famous for overly diplomatic tones sometimes, but calling somebody a stupid, idiotic, prejudiced human being, warrants some actions in my opinion. That the list should even apologize to the offender seems to me ridiculous. If the participants don't value themselves and their dignity, they deserve none.

+~1 to Eddy. I don't think we should return injury for injury. Everyone should be treated with respect IMO. But those who refuse to treat others with respect don't need to be privileged by the community with a medium by which their disrespect can be more easily transmitted.

Dick also said:

I disagree with removing Santosh from the mail list. I prefer a fully inclusive community.

Wanting a fully inclusive community, but in which community personal attacks are allowed, is a paradox IMO. I think what we want here is a useful forum in which many viewpoints on OpenID-related issues can be discussed. We lose that when personal attacks threaten to encourage respectful people with good ideas to leave the mailing list.

Dick again:

While I can empathize with the frustration of someone not being what we consider respectful,

I'll be bold enough to say it was very disrespectful. To say merely that "someone might not consider Santosh's comments to be respectful" is an insult to those he flamed IMO. This isn't really a correction to your words, Dick, as it looks from context that you were speaking of the general danger of this rather than this specific case.

I actually wasn't offended at Santosh's attack on me, because it was obvious to me he spoke in the heat of the moment. However if we really want this "all inclusive of ideas" community, it's very important that people don't attack others personally when they don't like the ideas that those others are sharing.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-29T20:08:54Z

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@...> wrote:

I disagree with removing Santosh from the mail list. I prefer a fully inclusive community. I remember some pretty abusive flame wars on the perl5-porters mail list in the early 90s. The inclusive approach that Larry Wall took was that we all knew where the delete key was, and if we were lazy, we could add the annoying member to a kill file so that we never saw their email.

While I prefer inclusivity as well, I don't believe that we should abide behavior that in its effect is exclusive.

I understand that flame wars happen from time to time. That doesn't mean that they should be "okay". Furthermore, the web and its participants have become much more diverse since the 90s. This calls for a modernization of social norms on lists such as ours and therefore an aggressive approach in dealing with ad hominem attacks.

Verbal bullying is never productive, and banning someone for a set period of time is one effective way of creating distance between the intimidator and their target.

While I can empathize with the frustration of someone not being what we consider respectful, banning someone for a subjective action is a slippery slope. Banning someone for sending spam is a different manner[1].

While we haven't done a great job making it clear who the admins of the lists are and what their jobs entail, one of the reasons we have admins is to act to protect the interests of community in situations like this (the interests being a productive, safe environment for discourse).

I think David did the right thing by warning Santosh on several occasions. Santosh is the master of his behavior; if he wanted to continue being prickly to the point where he became verbally violent, I think that he must bear the consequences therein. Being banned from a mailing list is nothing new; it should not come as a surprise that the next logical escalation was such a step.

Written guidelines/rules for a mail list (or any tool) codify the expected behaviour and are a "good" thing to have. The Microformats policy [2] is a reasonable starting point and contains many common expected behaviours of internet mail lists..

I would propose that we adopt the Microformats policy except for #16 (and number them!), allow Santosh back on the list, apologize for banning him, and direct him at the new policy and ask that he (and others) comply.

Did you read the version that I posted to the wiki? I can't tell if you're providing feedback or alternative wording to what I already wrote up?

http://wiki.openid.net/Mailing-List-Policies

Chris

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-29T19:38:54Z

On 11/30/2009 05:36 AM, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.):

On 11/30/2009 05:20 AM, Andrew Arnott:
On 11/30/2009 04:50 AM, Dick Hardt:
I would propose that we adopt the Microformats policy except for #16 (and number them!), allow Santosh back on the list, apologize for banning him, and direct him at the new policy and ask that he (and others) comply.
  
Eddy replied:

Dick, myself am not famous for overly diplomatic tones sometimes, but calling somebody a stupid, idiotic, prejudiced human being, warrants some actions in my opinion. That the list should even apologize to the offender seems to me ridiculous. If the participants don't value themselves and their dignity, they deserve none.

+~1 to Eddy. I don't think we should return injury for injury. Everyone should be treated with respect IMO. But those who refuse to treat others with respect don't need to be privileged by the community with a medium by which their disrespect can be more easily transmitted.
I'm all in favor to have the freedom to make arguments (and contribute in this way), even strong ones. However violence starts with words - just look at history when borders on misuse of that freedom weren't in place. This isn't obviously a forum for socio-human interactive psychological studies, but I suggest to consider the distraction this comment just had. A personal attack on a member is not something we as a collective community must accept nor beneficial in any way - the course of action taken by David was the minimum I expected.

PS. which should have been more a response to Dick than Andrew.

Regards

Signer:	Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd.
XMPP:	startcom@...
Blog:	Join the Revolution!
Twitter:	Follow Me

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-29T19:36:05Z

On 11/30/2009 05:20 AM, Andrew Arnott:

On 11/30/2009 04:50 AM, Dick Hardt:
I would propose that we adopt the Microformats policy except for #16 (and number them!), allow Santosh back on the list, apologize for banning him, and direct him at the new policy and ask that he (and others) comply.
  
Eddy replied:

Dick, myself am not famous for overly diplomatic tones sometimes, but calling somebody a stupid, idiotic, prejudiced human being, warrants some actions in my opinion. That the list should even apologize to the offender seems to me ridiculous. If the participants don't value themselves and their dignity, they deserve none.

+~1 to Eddy. I don't think we should return injury for injury. Everyone should be treated with respect IMO. But those who refuse to treat others with respect don't need to be privileged by the community with a medium by which their disrespect can be more easily transmitted.

I'm all in favor to have the freedom to make arguments (and contribute in this way), even strong ones. However violence starts with words - just look at history when borders on misuse of that freedom weren't in place. This isn't obviously a forum for socio-human interactive psychological studies, but I suggest to consider the distraction this comment just had. A personal attack on a member is not something we as a collective community must accept nor beneficial in any way - the course of action taken by David was the minimum I expected.

Regards

Signer:	Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd.
XMPP:	startcom@...
Blog:	Join the Revolution!
Twitter:	Follow Me

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general

Re: On the banning of Santosh

2009-11-29T19:20:30Z

On 11/30/2009 04:50 AM, Dick Hardt:

I would propose that we adopt the Microformats policy except for #16 (and number them!), allow Santosh back on the list, apologize for banning him, and direct him at the new policy and ask that he (and others) comply.

Eddy replied:

Dick, myself am not famous for overly diplomatic tones sometimes, but calling somebody a stupid, idiotic, prejudiced human being, warrants some actions in my opinion. That the list should even apologize to the offender seems to me ridiculous. If the participants don't value themselves and their dignity, they deserve none.

Dick also said:

I disagree with removing Santosh from the mail list. I prefer a fully inclusive community.

Dick again:

While I can empathize with the frustration of someone not being what we consider respectful,

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general