[Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and Principles

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

[Side note: Brett's message does not appear on the archive, which has me
believe that it bounced or failed a sender check.  The reason Drummond and
EEK have responded is they received the message directly.  One tip: I have
found that listservers behave better if they are the only addressee in the
To:, with the non-list addressees kept in the Cc.  This is one of those
green-socks superstitions of mine, but I claim it works.  If it doesn't this
time, I will have to check with my astrologer.  I predict that the CC-ed
folk will receive two copies.]

I had not read the latest Purpose and Principles until following Drummond's
Link here.  I must say that I fancy them just as they are.  I also
understand that they are not practices and measures, they are principles.
And the purpose is very clear.

Having said that, I don't understand why any specialized group, consortium,
or whatever, couldn't happily organize itself underneath Identity Commons.
I am curious why some higher-level absorption is needed unless it is for
branding and governance.  I am particularly keen to know what is seen to be
an impediment to simply coming under Identity Commons.

Since I looked at the Purpose and Principles, I was struck by a missing
practice.  I suspect it will be seen as too formal.  I mention it anyhow.
It would be useful, when a working group is created, especially one with
some focused purpose and a tangible work product, that there be some
declaration of how adherence to the principles is to be demonstrated and
accounted for.  This is under the rubric of creating measures (not
necessarily quantitative ones) that can be demonstrated and
inspected/audited for.  

I'm not suggesting that there are any current working groups that require
this, but if something more like consortium activity were to be connected to
Identity Commons, it might be important.

 - Dennis

PS: In reviewing the thread of this discussion, I notice that it is very
abstract and speculative.  I think it would be better to deal with a
concrete case where there is some organization or business that wants to tie
in somehow.  A grounded case involving someone with serious interest would
be far more useful and easier to assess, too. 

[PPS: I think this struck me because my attention is on interoperability
these days, and I notice that it is not great that some use of the term is
more about interoperability-in-the-sky and check-off items, not
demonstrable, delimited interoperability.  I am not thinking this in regard
to Identity Commons or the Information Card Foundation, it is just on my
mind generally and came to the surface in reading the Purpose and
Principles.]

-----Original Message-----
http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/2008-June/001401.html
From: ... Drummond Reed
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 19:23
Subject: Re: [Community] addressing the needs of the community

[ ... ]

RE the subject itself, my immediate reaction is yes, I believe it is worth
exploring. Everything I hold "sacred" about the Identity Commons upside-down
umbrella is embodied in the Purpose and Principles:

	http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Purpose_And_Principles

So when you say, "I think if you were able to put everything on the table
except your core Purpose & Principals you'd find willing partners who
represent critical-mass of resources (and projects) necessary to solve the
bootstrap problem", I find that encouraging. My only caveat is that any
proposal for how to build an "industrial strength Identity Commons" (or
whatever this NewUmbrellaOrg would be called) has to really deeply
understand and be in alignment with the Purpose and Principles, because the
Principles are much deeper than might appear to the casual reader. 

In many ways Identity Commons is to organizational structure what Open Space
is to conference structure (in fact Kaliya has called Identity Commons an
"Open Space Organization" and I think that's a great term). So as long as
NewUmbrellaOrg could actually instantiate these Principles, I'd be very
interested.

How do you propose to proceed? Start with discussion on this list (as long
as it isn't broken)? Maybe have a short f2f about this at the VRM Workshop
in Boston?

[ ... ]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett McDowell [mailto:brett at ictprojects.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:02 PM
> To: Drummond Reed
> Cc: 'Eugene Eric Kim'; 'ID Commons---Community Mailing List'
> Subject: addressing the needs of the community
> 
[ ... ]
> What if we found a project or two or three out there today, with
> financial resources at their disposal, who were feeling the pain of
> how fragmented the identity community has become, who were interested
> in consolidating their projects (and all that that entails) with
> Identity Commons to create a "new" Upside-down Umbrella Org  (maybe we
> can put the naming question aside for the moment and just call this
> NewUSDUmbrellaOrg for the moment), because all they wanted at the end
> of the day is a simple yet professional and robust way of getting
> their project done and successfully marketed/adopted?  If we could
> find this critical-mass of folks asking you to be apart of this
> NewUSDUmbrellaOrg, could you put the way you do things today on the
> table subject to change (all except your core Purpose & Principals)?
> 
> Is this something you are interested in?  It's something I know many
> independent businesses and organizations/projects in this space are
> interested in.  I think if you were able to put everything on the
> table except your core Purpose & Principals you'd find willing
> partners who represent critical-mass of resources (and projects)
> necessary to solve the bootstrap problem.
> 
> What do you think?  Is there anything in this context setting that
> raises red flags?  I'm trying to keep this high-level before we get
> into any details (which I know will be debated line-by-line, as they
> should be).
> 
[ ... ]