[KI-LC] Charter for Identity Provider Selector Work Group accepted for review

[Drummond Reed]

First, my apologies to all for missing today's call - I was in Wash. D.C.
for meetings with the gov't about Information Cards and, since this is a new
call on my calendar, didn't realize until afterwards that I had not sent
regrets.

Secondly, I sent Brett a message about 2 weels ago (that I think he received
while he was on vacation) explaining what I believe is a very important
issue that Kantara needs to deal with, given its cross-community focus.

The proposed name for this WG is "Identity Provider Selector Work Group".
The problem I pointed out to Brett is that the term "selector" is already
deeply established with a very specific meaning in the Information Card
community, and in fact is the central term in the name of the Discussion
Group proposed by the Information Card Foundation, "Multi-Protocol Identity
Selector DG". 

	http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/DGICF 

See the Information Card Foundation white paper "The Information Card
Ecosystem" for a detailed explanation:

	http://informationcard.net/white-papers/ecosystem

When I read the Identity Provider Selector Work Group charter last week, I
was not able to find a definition of their meaning of the term "selector"
anywhere within it. I do know that about a year ago, the OpenID community
started to use the term "selector" to mean widgets that an RP (relying
party) would publish on its site to help a user choose an IdP. However,
based in part on the strenuous objections of the Information Card community,
who feared this new use of the term "selector" for this purpose would
severely confuse the market, the OpenID community stopped using the term
"selector".

Naturally I am making the same argument here. Above all, I believe that
having two Kantara Groups both using the name "Selector" in their name and
having completely different meanings for it (again I assume the Identity
Provider Selector Work Group's meaning is different because it does not
appear to have anything to do with selectors as defined by the Information
Card community) would be a major mistake.

It seems that cross-community terminology issues like this are bullseye for
what Kantara should be handling. In fact it surprises me that two Groups
could be proposed with conflicting terminology and no one else has raised
the issue until now (unless I missed it someplace).

How should we address this? I am happy to get on the phone with proposers of
this WG and/or Kantara staff to work this through as needed. I return to
Seattle from the D.C. trip tomorrow and should be able to do it over the
next week.

Best,

=Drummond 
======================
Interim Executive Director
Information Card Foundation


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-
> bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Eve Maler
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:19 PM
> To: LC at kantarainitiative.org
> Subject: [KI-LC] Charter for Identity Provider Selector Work Group
> acceptedfor review
> 
> I have received a request from Philippe Clement for the Leadership
> Council to approve the charter for the Identity Provider Selector Work
> Group.  I have reviewed the charter and determined that it adheres to
> the rules stated in the Kantara Bylaws and Operating Procedures, and
> therefore accept it for the LC's consideration.  This now starts a 30-
> day (maximum) period by which the LC must vote whether to approve the
> charter.
> 
> The charter is available here:
> 
> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/WGIDPSEL
> 
> 	Eve
> 	Kantara LC Secretary
> 
> Eve Maler                                          eve.maler @ sun.com
> Emerging Technologies Director                    cell +1 425 345 6756
> Sun Microsystems Identity Software                www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org