As a general practice, let's not get too caught up in naming at the
moment. I'm sure some people will see bias, intended or not, with a
phrase like "SPF-like" or "RMX-based" or "MTAMark-derived." But
hopefully as engineers on this list, we'll be able to look
past that for this interim period. We should probably pick a
non-controversial phrase and forgive people who don't.
The issue is not a trivial one. As you know I am in favor of
using Roberts rules of order, democracy and votes in working
groups, like we do in OASIS. Fact is that most times that we
have a contested vote it is on a naming issue, and yes they do
matter. I spent perhaps 200 hours working to get 'Assertion'
into the name of SAML. today people understand why.
There are two issues that have to be addressed here:
1) Marketting of the specification.
2) Credit for the people who contributed to the design.
Hadmut, Alan and others have a very legitimate complaint
here. The reason I took such offense at the earlier
publicity strategy of ASRG was that the effect it
would have on the group was very clear.
The best way to address (2) is if we work together offline.
Earlier I asked from certain individuals to give me soundbite
quotes that I or anyone else who is being interviewed by a
journalist can pass on.
I often (usually) get called up by a journalist with less than
six hours before their deadline comes up. That means I have
less than an hour to get my PR person online, discuss the
talking points and return the call. I could try to give a
direction to someone else but the probability of the journalist
bothering is small.
It is really easy though for me to say, 'off the record, we have
a credit issue here, I'll email you some quotes from some key
contributors.'
Phill