[Community] Workgroup for "Enterprise Identity"

Wed Feb 7 12:16:06 PST 2007

Currently it reads:

Conversation on the list is public but we do however ask for you to request
permission from the author or authors to republish and to pay attention to
the context when you republish.

The contents of all publicly available resources, including the wiki, all
specifications and other publications, are licensed under Creative Commons
2.5 Attribution license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/.

On 2/7/07, Gabe Wachob <gabe.wachob at amsoft.net> wrote:
>
>  +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: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
>
>
> 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)
> 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)
> <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/dac003d9/attachment.html 