In May 2008, the OpenID Foundation (OIDF) board had a face-to-face meeting at Google where we were planning for the next year. During that meeting we started to discuss focus and scope of the OIDF and realized that there was a much bigger need in the community of developers creating light-weight, open specifications for the web. Ironically, there were several other people visiting Google that day and over lunch, we hatched an idea that has finally been formalized today.

As a bit of history, when we created the OIDF, we learned quite a bit about what it takes for individuals and companies to come together within a community to develop and open specification. Out of this work, we developed a process for managing IP and copyrights as well as built a strong relationship among a good portion of people working on these problems across the web. It wasn’t all easy and many communities developing other open specifications learned quite a bit from us. We wanted to find a way to make it so others wouldn’t have to go through this hassle ever again.

To answer several of the pain points around getting an open specification to be able to be used in the marketplace and keep community members writing code and specs and not legal documentation, several of us came together to create the Open Web Foundation. I’d talked about this in Februrary at the Social Graph FooCamp and DeWitt has been talking about it for years … :-)

The most up-to-date information about the OWF can be found on the website but there are a few things I’ll mention here. The OWF is an organization modeled after the Apache Software Foundation; we wanted to use a model that has been working and has stood the test of time. The OWF will only focus on specifications; we won’t touch code. There are plenty of other places to do that.

The hard part is yet to come. There is a lot of work to do here but I’m excited to be a part of such a fantastic group of people. I have never seen so many people come together to make something so fantastic happen so quickly. Congrats again, and let’s roll up our sleeves folks.

I know when I was first introduced to Data Portability I was skeptical but when the ensuing media circus flooded the blogosphere, I had no choice but to jump right in. Many of the people developing the open protocols co-opted by the Data Portability project have hinted (both publicly and privately) at leaving. Others have just outright left.

I don’t have a problem with Data Portability as a whole as much as I do with its leader, Chris Saad. The lack of clarity of vision, the delusions of grandeur and blatant pandering are so frustrating to someone such as myself that has worked so hard to actually do something in this space. I know I’m not alone here, but this week, I reached a tipping point.

First of all, a little history.

David Recordon and I made a point of inviting Chris Saad out to the Social Graph FooCamp in February 2008 as Data Portability was really starting to take the main stage. On the last day, at the eleventh hour, Saad led a talk on Data Portability that got rather heated. Chris Messina, Joseph Smarr, Jeremy Keith, Tantek and many, many others were there saying the same thing: we’re already having these discussions, why do we have to do it now at dataportability.org? We left Sebastopol that afternoon hoping to have Chris Saad really carry on the conversation with the wider audience he had brought to the table. Instead, we continued to hear more calls of “come join the conversation on dataportability.org” coupled with empty press releases instead of real leadership.

At the Data Sharing Workshop where Marc Canter put it all into context for me (and then he prodded me again yesterday). Data Portability is about APML riding along with the rest of the well-known and established Open Web protocols.

Marc and I have had our differences in the past, but on this we both agree.

I’ve always been in the Chris Messina Don’t-stab-babies-in-the-face camp with respect to data portability. Lower-case data portability embodies many of the same ideals around the Open Web. Many small open building blocks, loosely joined helping to enable data exchange and control for users. How can you not like that?!

My reasons are particularly personal for not wanting to participate in Data Portability anymore. I’ve spent close to the last two years chairing the OpenID Foundation board. I’ve seen a fantastic community coalesce out of nothing to create a technology that has been widely adopted. When Data Portability pulled OpenID into its technology stack, I was actually really excited. However, with the expectations set by the media around Data Portability and the lack of follow-through has the potential to negatively impact all of the hard work by these existing communities have done.

My tipping point about this came earlier this week when Jive Software joined the Data Portability group. I love the folks at Jive, have known them for years and always wish them well. However, its a bummer that even folks from my hometown can be misled by this DP media hoopla. When I read Sam Lawrence say:

In the meantime, we’re interested in working with the Data Portability group to help contribute to these standards as well as new ones as well. Hopefully, the organization is now at a point in its evolution to proceed with formal and elected leadership, a standards body, voting process and the rest of the stuff that makes organizations successful.

I realized even Jive had been fooled by the hype around Data Portability. DP is not about creating new technology:

Some things that The DataPortability Project is not:

• We are not a group focused on creating new technologies. DataPortability intends to work with tools that already exist today.
• The group is primarily focused on consumer facing technologies and not those aimed at corporate internal use.

Chris was quoted in Jive’s press release. He knew about this announcement. And yet, as he did with the “Data Availability” release that MySpace did, he opted to “take-all-comers” instead of stay focused on the specific mission of the Data Portabililty project.

More importantly, its not where the discussions about these protocols are happening. They are already happening on openid.net, oauth.net, microformats.org and many, many others. I’m excited to see people talking about OpenID within the Data Portability project, but I feel like they are actually taking away from the existing communities and misleading the new members of the Data Portability community.

I put the blame for this type of messaging and lack of clarity squarely on the back of Chris Saad. I’m actually really amazed at the quality of people that have joined the Data Portability community. They are well-spoken, understand the meaning of collaborative discussion and are very passionate about the project itself. But Chris hasn’t shown the ability to stick to the goals and mission of his organization and community. In fact, the DP community does a better job of staying on point than Chris does.

David Recordon is on the right track; how do you support the Open Web? To me, the Open Web is what this is all about. The Open Web is the key to the centralized me or citizen-centric web we hear so many people talking about. Without interoperable formats and protocols, all of this stuff will be a pipe dream.

Instead of just complaining, I’m going to continue focusing my efforts where I think I can make the most impact. I’m going to continue working hard to promote and enable the OpenID community, I’m going to continue to encourage and engage in discussions with projects like OAuth, microformats, DiSo and others and I encourage everyone to join me in doing the same.