<div>Hi Josh, </div><div><br></div><div>To which statement did you agree?</div><div><br></div><div>There has been a several things that has been pointed out, but I think I have answered to them. </div><div><br></div><div>For example, for XML Sig, I have stated that this spec is not for XML, etc. </div>
<div>For modularization, yes, that is a possibility but a scope needs to be able to cover a field that it requires, even if it ends up not covering that field. </div><div>It is impossible to widen the scope though narrowing it down at a later date is easy. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Unfortunately, I have not heard back any concrete response for amendments. It would be more constructive to have those. </div><div><br></div><div>Also, if you are giving advise to the membership an recommendation for not approving it, you need to state the reasons concretely. </div>
<div><br></div><div>It needs to be one of </div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(80, 0, 80); "><div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2">(a) an incomplete Proposal (i.e., failure to comply with §4.1);<br>
(b) a determination that the proposal contravenes the OpenID community's purpose;<br>(c) a determination that the proposed WG does not have sufficient support to succeed</font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="arial"> </font>or to deliver proposed deliverables within projected completion dates; or<br>
(d) a determination that the proposal is likely to cause legal liability for the OIDF or others. <br></font></div><div><br></div><div>and should state why the proposal falls into one of the criteria concretely and accountably. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards, </div><div><br></div><div>=nat</div></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; "><div class="Ih2E3d" style="color: rgb(80, 0, 80); "><div dir="ltr"><br></div>
</div></span><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Josh Hoyt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:josh@janrain.com">josh@janrain.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Mike Jones<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><<a href="mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com">Michael.Jones@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">> I realize it was Christmas week but it's been a week and we've heard nothing<br>
> from any of the other specs council members on this proposal (or the other<br>
> one as well).<br>
<br>
</div>I agree with the statement that you made about this proposal.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Josh<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br><a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a><br>