[Community] Workgroup for "Enterprise Identity"

[Gabe Wachob]

+1

 

I think identity commons should set an example of how these efforts *should*
work, and not necessarily reflect how they work today. Anybody can set up a
private discussion list to discuss these topics - it's more valuable and
difficult to set up an open and neutral forum for discussion. 

 

I also think that as a community, we should only agree to private working
group discussions if there is a "compelling community interest" to do so - I
can't think of any reason that standard is met here. 

 

            -Gabe

 

  _____  

From: community-bounces at idcommons.net
[mailto:community-bounces at idcommons.net] On Behalf Of Bavo De Ridder
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:41 AM
To: community at idcommons.net
Subject: Re: [Community] Workgroup for "Enterprise Identity"

 

Hi,

My intentions were pretty simple: trying to prevent out-of-context
disclosures. However, now that you have raised the issue, I have been
thinking about it and I came to the following conclusion:

*	Keeping the proceedings private would severely cripple the exposure
of the working group. Absolutely something to avoid. Without exposure, we
don't survive. 
*	Keeping the proceedings private would also mean that a significant
amount of time and effort would go into creating an endorsed communication
channel with the outside. Or in other words: I would like to avoid
discussion threads about how we are going to communicate something to the
outside and instead devote time and effort to the actual contents. 
*	Occasional "leaks" (out-of-context disclosures) may harm the working
group, but they are also publicity and they will almost always stir up the
community and create a  public debate on the topic. Something we can only
encourage. Remember: as long as they spell your name correctly, there is no
such thing as bad publicity. 

In other words, that particular limitation is going to be removed from the
charter. It generates far to many disadvantages and almost no advantages.

Regarding out-of-context disclosures: we will tackle them if and when they
occur and if and when they have a significant negative impact on the working
group. 



On 2/6/07, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed at cordance.net> wrote:

Bavo,

 

I reviewed the charter and it looks pretty good but one thing caught my eye:
in the Licenses section it says:

 

"Conversation withing the working group, including the list, is private to
the working group."

 

While it is fine for the WG to adopt such a restriction, is it really
needed? To my knowledge the only other Identity Commons WGs operating a
private list is the Identity Gang list, and folks there sometimes wonder if
it needed to be private.

 

However, if you believe there are good reasons (such as the need to discuss
specific enterprise use cases that participants would not want public),
that's fine, I just wanted to inquire about the rationale.

 

Thanks,

 

=Drummond  

 

  _____  

From: community-bounces at idcommons.net [mailto:
<mailto:community-bounces at idcommons.net>  community-bounces at idcommons.net]
On Behalf Of Bavo De Ridder
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:47 AM
To: community at idcommons.net
Subject: Re: [Community] Workgroup for "Enterprise Identity"

 

Hi,

I have created a first draft of a charter on
http://wiki.idcommons.net/moin.cgi/EnterpriseIdentityCharter
<http://wiki.idcommons.net/moin.cgi/EnterpriseIdentityCharter> 

Feel free to comment or discuss. Anyone with a better knowledge of English
is welcome to improve the text. 

On 1/17/07, Bavo De Ridder <bderidder at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

Browsing through the site of Identity Commons I couldn't find a working
group that is specializing in what you could call "Enterprise Identity".
Meaning managing identity from a company's point of view, in particular B2E,
B2B and B2C. Today there exists a certain gap between what is happening in
the enterprise identity world (where centralization and IDM suites still
reign the world) and internet identity where open and flexible models and
protocols are being developed. I sincerely believe that both worlds need to
grow towards each other eventually becoming "one". This in light of the
fading walls and borders around companies and between different user groups
(B2E, B2B ...). 

Is anyone interested in joining me to create such a group?

-- 
=bavo.de.ridder ( <http://xri.net/=bavo.de.ridder>
http://xri.net/=bavo.de.ridder)
Visit me at http://xri.net/=bavo.de.ridder/(+home)
<http://xri.net/=bavo.de.ridder/%28+home%29>  




-- 
=bavo.de.ridder (http://xri.net/=bavo.de.ridder)
Visit me at http://xri.net/=bavo.de.ridder/(+home)
<http://xri.net/=bavo.de.ridder/%28+home%29>  




-- 
=bavo.de.ridder (http://xri.net/=bavo.de.ridder)
Visit me at http://xri.net/=bavo.de.ridder/(+home) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/attachments/20070207/dcf3346b/attachment-0001.htm