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

[Eugene Eric Kim]

Comments below.

Brett McDowell wrote:
> 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?

Yes, with a caveat.

My question for these groups is, what are the opportunities to eliminate 
redundancy?  Certainly not having to deal with the operational costs of 
starting a new organization seems attractive, and that is definitely 
something Identity Commons should and is now in a position to address.

However, much of the labor of starting a new project/organization would 
still remain, such as going through the process of developing a charter.

At IIW, we identified director's insurance as a possible service Identity 
Commons could provide to working groups.  After exploring this issue, 
Charles Andre discovered that it wasn't feasible.  What are some of the 
other concrete opportunities?

> 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.

What does this mean?

=Eugene

-- 
=========================================================================
Eugene Eric Kim ................................... http://xri.net/=eekim
Blue Oxen Associates ........................... http://www.blueoxen.com/
=========================================================================