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

[Drummond Reed]

I agree that this is worth exploring. So much of the progress (one would
argue almost all of the progress except for Kaliya's efforts) of Identity
Commons is based on what is important to specific groups that self-organize
to get it done.

In this case, the potential is for Identity Commons itself to do more for
the Action Groups. But there's a bootstrap problem: we need the
infrastructure to attract new Action Groups who want to use it...and the
Action Groups need the infrastructure before they can come.

I'm open to creative ways to solve that bootstrap problem. In the end the
mission remains the same: facilitate building a user-centric identity layer
for the net. That's what we're about.

=Drummond 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: community-bounces at idcommons.net [mailto:community-
> bounces at idcommons.net] On Behalf Of Eugene Eric Kim
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:48 AM
> To: 'ID Commons---Community Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [Community] Identity Commons Stewards call today at 9am PT /
> 12pm ET
> 
> 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/
> =========================================================================
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at idcommons.net
> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community