[Community] Identity Commons Stewards call today at 9am PT / 12pm ET

[Brett McDowell]

 From the notes...

>  Identity Commons Services
>
> Brett pointed out that the identity space is becoming increasingly  
> fractured. There's an opportunity for IC to become a one-stop shop  
> for getting information and getting involved in this space. Do we  
> want this? Brett noted that it may require structural changes if we  
> do. Eugene wants to see the specifics that our current  
> organizational structure would not be able to support.
>
> Chris Allen noted that Identity Commons Working Groups can be  
> membership organizations without requiring the entire organization  
> to be a membership organization. Dan said that in these cases, we  
> need to think about the income implications possibly impugning the  
> organization.
>
> We didn't have enough time to discuss these issues thoroughly over  
> the phone, and so Brett will send a followup email and possibly set  
> up a call to explore this topic some more.
>
> At IIW, Charles Andre suggested that one service IC could provide to  
> its affiliates is director's insurance, which is expensive.  
> According to Mary, he explored this possibility, and it didn't look  
> realistic, because underwriters want to evaluate each group on an  
> individual basis.

I think the issue is pretty simple... groups are going through the  
same reinvestment of time and dollars just to setup the operational  
shell for their project.  Often its even the same people.  That alone  
is a sign IDcommons isn't "doing enough" (I don't mean that as a  
criticism, I don't think IDcommons really wanted to provide all of  
this for the community... yet), but what's worse is the end result is  
bad for everyone... too many projects to join, track, travel for,  
etc.  If something comes up that requires more than one project to do  
something (i.e. synergies are discovered) then it is that much harder  
to make progress (multiple groups need to work in sync even if on the  
same thing, wasted and duplicative effort).

So, if you simply look at what these groups have done, or are  
continuing to do, you will know exactly what you need to do to remove  
that barrier for future projects.  If you do a good enough job, you  
might even get some of these new foundations to "come back/under/over"  
what you have created because of the value proposition you offer.

Is this something you really want to tackle?  If not, what if you  
weren't alone in trying to pull it off?  What would you need from  
partnering projects to feel you had the resources to do this and do it  
well?

Also, would you be open to being "sponsored" by an umbrella foundation  
but still operating as "a commons" without any of the membership  
structure that was brought up on the call.

-- Brett


On Jun 4, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote:

> Thanks for a great meeting, everybody!  We had excellent participation
> and lots of good discussion.  Notes from today's meeting are up at:
>
> http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Stewards_Council_Telecon:_2008_June_4
>
> Mary Ruddy wrote:
>> Reminder: we have our next regular Identity Commons Stewards
>> call today,  June 4 at 9am PT / 12pm ET.  See link below for dial in
>> number and agenda.
>>
>> http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Stewards_Council_Telecon:_2008_June_4
>
> -- 
> = 
> = 
> = 
> ======================================================================
> Eugene Eric Kim ................................... http://xri.net/=eekim
> Blue Oxen Associates ........................... http://www.blueoxen.com/
> = 
> = 
> = 
> ======================================================================
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at idcommons.net
> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community